As you may have heard, Joe, the plan du jour urged upon the Democratic leadership is to move no funding bill at all through Congress, a plan that is certainly within their powers as the majority party that controls the agenda of the floor. Almost everybody gets the fact that Congress right now cannot overturn a veto. However, equally, a president cannot create his own spending bill, and the Constitution prohibits the expenditure of any monies that are not voted out of the Congress.

Sure, this approach would undoubtedly find the GOP decrying the Democrats as abandoning the troops in the field without necessities, telling the people that the Dems are traitors to the country and its military.

However, that is what the most active critics of the Democrats from the leftish/anti-war side of things are asking for, and no number of bills doing this or that with timelines (usually, voluntary timelines at that!) will impress them, since most understand the kabuki dance the veto represents on such bills.

Maybe that is politically stupid suicide, but let's not pretend that passing such easily brushed aside timelines should fully satisfy the critics, or that there isn't something else that could be done. It may not be politically wise, but surely, the Democrats do have that blunt instrument in their tool kit.

It was used several times before, both in defunding the Vietnam War under the Ford administration, and with the Boland Amendment, defunding the Contras.

...sofla
 

Oy! Again with "the progressives". This is not an election, Joe. It's still barely spring training. You're paying far too much attention to people who are still basking in that Jupiter bump they believe they got for knowing Microsoft Times New Roman from Shinola. How much influence do you think bloggers and their reader/commenters have on politicians? Busy people don't bother with blogs. Sometimes someone mentions a blog item to a busy person. Do you think elected or public officials pay (with our money) a staff person to read blogs all day?

But political campaigners and their staffs are a different story. They all have dedicated blog readers. They read your blog, but they probably stop reading when you kvetch about people who are uninformed and whose votes won't make any difference. If you've been auditioning for a campaign assignment next year, you should say so.

So, say so. Whose campaign would you most want to work for as a blog clipper and analyst? Whose would you absolutely not work for?

Take your time before answering, someone on every campaign staff is reading this and will need an assistant.
 

Joseph: Please drop me an email at act3prods@aol.com. I'm doing an article on little Annie Coluter, and would like to backtrack the rights holders of the photos you've got of her to use them, plus your own photo comparisons.) Thanks. Ted Newsom
 

"Almost everybody gets the fact that Congress right now cannot overturn a veto."

I can't agree.

Oliver Hardy once said: "Stan plays the dumb dumb guy, and I play the smart smart guy -- who's actually just as dumb as the dumb guy, only he doesn't know it."

Progressives are Oliver Hardy. Convinced of their own acumen, many of them really do not know how the veto works.

"Sure, this approach would undoubtedly find the GOP decrying the Democrats as abandoning the troops in the field without necessities, telling the people that the Dems are traitors to the country and its military."

That is why Reid had to separate Iraq war funding from overall military spending.

Will the Limbaugh listeners comprehend the distinction? Probably not. Conservatives are Stan Laurel -- dumb dumb guys.

The metaphor breaks down after a while, of course. Stan used to cry and whine and say "I'm sorry, Ollie!" Conservatives cry and whine, but they never apologize.