SanderO @ 115

The way the republican enforce and discipline their “congress persons” it is highly unlikely to get enough to break away to form a veto proof majority.

How about a different approach? Think outside the box please.

Yes it’s time to think outside the box. I’m a mathematician and problem solver. I will listen to any good ideas. Iraq is a terrible mess, and as we all know, we now have a situation of choosing between bad alternatives. I do know that we need a veto-proof majority, and I believe many R’s are very anxious to find some way to end this thing asap.

Congressman McNerney…doesn’t mean that obtaining a “veto-proof” majority means that you somehow have to compromise, not with the one or two Republican Congresspersons who might swing to a reasonable position, but to that one that is about #88 on the list behind them.

Such a “solution” will likely mean that you will

a) retain troops in Iraq indefinitely, only getting “superficial” withdrawals.

b) never be able to revisit your vote down the road when conditions are such that politically Republicans are compelled to react more favorably.

c) likely have no fixed deadlines…at least until well AFTER the Bush Adminsitration is long gone and the 2008 Elections have passed.

At what point do you compromise your positions to appease that final Republican you need to win your “veto-proof” majority. You say that Democrats can “Do Nothing” until the have that veto-proof majority. But if the consequences of that is an Amendment that is so tepid as to “Do Nothing” what hae you really gained. It would be a “DO Nothing” Resolution.

Did we elect you to obtain do-nothing acts that largely maintain the status quo? After all, all reasonable analysts of force levels show that the “surge” cannot be sustained beyond January…there will be an inevitable draw down. So why allow the Republicans to paper over this as their willingness to “compromise” and paint them as “good guys” when they haven’t done a frickin’ thing.

You need to play hardball…and hold firm on not funding any more troop introductions UNTIL the Republicans or the WH agree to begin substantial drawdowns and a firm deadline for full termination of US military involvement in Iraq. One way you can do this is to support a RESOLUTION stating that the War Powers Resolution that authorized the use of force is now obsolete and has been for some time. Since that new Resolution is not a “law” it requires only a simple majority. And it deactivates the legal right for Bush to continue the war. It requires him to request a NEW authorizing resolution.

The original Resolution only required a 50% 1 vote. It was NOT something that could be vetoed since it was a statement of the “sense of Congress”.

Any such NEW resolution should have FIXED timetables. And no funding should be allocated UNTIL such a new authorizing resolution is passed.

THAT’s HOW you get us out of IRAQ without the “super-majority” you insist you need.

Thank god for FDL.

Um, yeah.

Jerry McNerney @ 141

Yes it’s time to think outside the box. I’m a mathematician and problem solver. I will listen to any good ideas. … and I believe many R’s are very anxious to find some way to end this thing asap.

… let me suggest that the GOP members are stuck in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The best mutual solution is cooperation, but they fear being hung out to dry.

How do you beat (and how can we help you beat) the Prisoner’s Dilemma?

That is a tough question to ask a freshman Congressman. The answer is to put things in writing and nail it down like a great contract for the ages OR Trust. Most don’t trust (Republicans have great reason to not trust someone [the Dems] who have every reason to want major revenge) and some, such as our guest, aren’t really in a position to offer anything the leadership could slough off or contradict.

Sometimes you’ve just gotta hold out your hand and shake on a deal. Trust, but verify I suppose.

In this fight the strategy can’t come from every Congressman. It has to be a unified party strategy, usually coming from the leadership. Right now I think part of our frustration is that the leadership is somewhat fractured and that leads to confusion. Speaker Pelosi seems to have the edge, but occasionally gives Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel some room to assert themselves and it isn’t working as fast as we’d like.

We need ONE strategy: gain the public trust and support.

Once you have that you can force the hand of Republicans (who might actually be relieved of the pressure to continue supporting Bush).

We have to convince the public in certain districts and states to pressure their Congresscritters to end it, split from Bush, get out.

Our guest can only work toward that goal by talk talk talking to everyone about getting out.

So, I suppose the final direction from firedoglake is to stop saying anything which sounds remotely supportive of Bush policies and talk to Congressional Republicans in private until they come around.

Publicly, Dems need to be united behind one idea we all want: we should leave Iraq as soon as we can.

That leaves room for various tactics, timetables and other details.

Politics isn’t like maths. It’s messier, less clear, less obvious, more emotional. But, if we have a common goal and we assert ourselves together we can reach the public.

It’s a shame it has to be such an overwhelming Congressional force needed to bring the president into check. But, that’s his call and both he and the Republican party are going to pay a heavy price for his obstinance.

There is nothing in it for Republican legislators to compromise with us. Any of them that waver will be targeted by their own party in the next primaries. Already, Ari Fleischer is heading up an organization that will spend over $15 million dollars running pro-war ads in districts that are already represented by Republicans. Sir, you have nothing to offer them to get them to join you in a “veto-proof” majority.

Senator Edwards was right. You should send Bush the same bill, week after week, and make him veto it week after week. The American public is overwhelmingly against this war and this president. We should take the spectacle of him thwarting the will of the American people again and again, and hang it around the necks of the legislators who continue to support him in the next election.

It’s painfully clear that the only reasonable Republican is one who is afraid of dealing with a hostile constituency in an upcoming election.

Quit playing nice with these people. They think you’re a patsy.

I put up a quick post with my initial thoughts over at Calitics, for those who are interested.

Thanks, Julia.

Now that Rep. McNerney isn’t here any more I think your diary is an excellent place for people to hash out their responses.