And then you look at the approval ratings for Congressional Democrats, and the picture improves a bit.
The following are the most recent polls available, all taken during the first half of February:
Gallup/USA Today: "“Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?”
Approve-Disapprove-Unsure is 41-50-9.
Harris: “How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?”
Exc/PG-F/P is 41-52.
Pew: “Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Democratic leaders in Congress are doing?”
Approve-Disapprove-Unsure is 41-36-23.
CBS: “In general, is your opinion of the Democrats in Congress favorable or not favorable?”
Favorable-Unfavorable -Unsure is 54-35-11.
In even the worst of those, the Congressional Dems have a minus-11 net. Other than one Fox outlier, Bush hasn’t done better than -19 in three months, and often bumps up against -30.
Three of those four polling outfits asked the same questions about Congressional Republicans at the same time.
Gallup-USA: 33-59-8
Harris: 26-69
CBS: 41-49-10
As you can see, which party in Congress seems to matter a great deal to people. Asking them about “Congress” fuzzes that distinction over.
I didn’t think that vote would go so well. I can only guess if the Democrats could get 10 or more Republicans to vote against a filibuster, should that happen, but at least this is progress.
Even a vote against cloture on the bill itself puts them on record: “The Democrats supported a bill that would have ended the Iraq war. Senator X was one of those who blocked the bill.”
So yeah, it’s progress. I’m sure the Dems won’t succeed in a cloture vote on the bill itself unless it doesn’t have the votes to pass, and even then the GOP might block the vote on general principles.
I think that even an expression of congressional disapproval of the President’s actions would undermine his authority to do anything. Youngstown steel and all that.
It was a supreme court case during the vietnam war where Nixon wanted to comandeer the steel factories and in an often cited concurring opinion by Justice Jackson, he delineated when the President had a lot of authority to ecercise executive power and when he had little authority.
Remember that we’re not actually “at war.” There’s been no declaration of war. We’re operating under the WPR which doesn’t provide as much leeway for the executive as an actual declaration of war.
I suspect there are a few tacks as of yet unmentioned.
Look, as much as I’d like to see Democrats be able to do something big on Iraq, we’re skipping over that whole “10 Republicans need to vote with Dems in the Senate to prevent a filibuster of an end the war now appropriations bill.” I have a hard time seeing that happen. I hear questions about whether strong anti-war Democrats in the House would approve a bill for funding the war even if it has some pullout date in the future. Passage of such a bill is far from assured.
My rule of thumb is that Congress tends to attract more blame than a President for things being in disarray. Congress is a chaotic agency that is frankly hard to like: look at all the compensation for spinach growers and new office space for House members and all that stuff being jammed into a war appropriations bill. That’s not exactly a process that endears Congress to the sympathies of the people at large. Meanwhile, the President is a unitary actor who doesn’t have to go through such gymnastics.
The event looming in my mind is when Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton had a showdown over the budget in 1995 (IIRC) and Clinton vetoed a Republican-sponsored budget that would result in cuts to domestic spending. The government shut down. Who got the blame? Congress. Was Clinton very popular then? Eh, he was routed in the mid-terms just a year before. Congress had seen a small bounce in approval ratings. People just didn’t like seeing VA hospitals with skeleton staffs – we were not even talking about cutting off funds to the troops.
Today, things are somewhat different – Bush is certainly less popular than Clinton, Congress may be a bit more popular today than in 1995. The war is a hot, hot, hot issue, and domestic discretionary spending never is. But I just don’t think most Americans are ready to see “the troops” “pay the price” for Washington politics and gamesmanship. If I had to bet right now, I’d put my money on Congress (not the Democrats, but the whole Congress) getting the blame for our troops not getting money on time.
(And as far as the Constitution goes, the Food and Forage Act would allow basic supplies to continue to go to the troops even in the absence of additional war appropriations – but buying new body armor? New armored vehicles? More ammunition? No way.)
The House of Representatives has approved the timetable. (By a vote of 218 to 212 – suggesting it will be hard to get enough votes to override a presidential veto.)
Overriding a veto is not strictly neccesary for the Democrats to win this. All they need is 218 members who refuse to pass any spending bills without the withdrawl provision. No money === No War. It’s that simple.
Yeah, coming back from fantasy-land, there were only something like a dozen Democrats who were willing to vote against funds for the troops. There is no way that 214 more Dems will join that fringe group.
I’m also certain that a substantial majority of Americans don’t want to see a cutoff of funds for the troops in harm’s way. Failing to pass this supplemental in some way, shape, or form is political suicide.
I think you’re framing it in the wrong way. These 218 Congressman are perfectly willing to fund the troops… as long as there is a timetable for when they get out of there. It is Bush who is vetoing the bill and starving the troops. Pelosi and the Dems just need some good PR people to frame this the right way.
Not to mention that the Democrats had to pork up the bill and buy every ally they could just to eke out this victory, violating ethics campaign pledges in the process and pissing off people who usually could be counted on to be supportive, like the Washington Post editorial page.
Do you think this outpouring of pork could be sustained as well?
I agree. I think it’s important to remember, though, that the Democrats don’t control the Senate with regard to the Iraq war. Lieberman and the illness of that Dem senator combined give the Republicans control
If the Senate doesn’t pass the same bill then there will be a conference to work something out. It would be nice if they took out all of that pork and passed a clean funding bill while they are at it.
If GW vetos the conference bill so be it. I don’t see how he can do that.
