The Roll-Over-And-Play-Dead Bill

Thinking more about the Iraq Supplemental bill that just passed Congress, after noting Klein's gaffe. Tactically, it's a blunder. Strategically it seems to be a blunder, and a vindication of all the Republican talking points about spineless Democrats. (I mean, if they're worried about what the likes of Joe Klein are going to say. . . .) Unless, of course, they've got something really sneaky up their sleeves, and Democrats just aren't that with it.

Going back to my stray thought of yesterday, Bush is going to veto everything coming out of Congress that he hasn't dictated to them until he's out of office. That's fairly obvious at this point. That's the way he's used to dealing with Congress. He doesn't compromise because he's not interested in the best interests of the country -- at least, there's no evidence that he is. He's not mature enough to admit he was wrong, and not realistic enough to realize that his legacy will be, indeed, that of the Worst. President. Ever. (Unless, of course, you are a Washington-based reporter or a major Republican donor.) I think he really does believe that a) he's right about everything, all the time, and b) God is going to swoop down in a blazing chariot and anoint him Eternal President.


If the Democrats think they're going to get anywhere with this fucktard by cooperating, they're full of it.

This perspective, from Ezra Klein:

But I'm not exactly sure what more folks would have had the Democrats do. The political invulnerability of President Bush is, I think, a reality that hasn't quite penetrated the punditocracy. Bush is never running for office ever again. He has no political heir to protect, and is clearly uninterested in the future fortunes of the Republican Party. He is massively unpopular, and his agenda is utterly stymied in the Democratic Congress. He can literally veto the spending bills forever -- Congress has absolutely no leverage against him. And the American people, at least as I read the polls, will not support the defunding of the troops. Maybe Congress could have forced a second veto, but the idea that they could continually force Bush's veto and that would result in an eventual win seems wrong.

He's not that far off from what I said, just a little less personal. But then, I tend to get personal.

There is, however, another alternative -- Congress does control the purse strings. Stop sending money. Send money with strings attached. And make sure the message comes across loud and clear when the veto happens: "Bush is defunding the troops."

What's so hard about that.