Balkinization: Rahm Emanuel on the Democrats' best strategy

Rahm Emanuel on the Democrats' best strategy

Sandy Levinson

Today's Washington Post column by David Ignatius is based on an interview with Rahn Emanuel. It includes the following:

With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel plans to use Bush's Iraq speech to pose what amounts to a vote of "no confidence" in Bush's leadership -- framing the new strategy as a congressional motion and voting it up or down. Emanuel is certain that Bush's strategy will be voted down and that a sizable number of Republicans will join the Democrats in rejecting the military escalation. Rather than try to restrict funds for the troops (which he sees as a political blunder that would delight Republicans), Emanuel instead favors a proposal by Rep. John Murtha to set strict standards for readiness -- which would make it hard to finance the troop surge in Iraq without beefing up the military as a whole. The idea is to position the Democrats as friends of the military, even as they denounce Bush's Iraq policy....

The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.
*************************************************

Query: On what precise basis will Mitch McConnell justify a filibuster against a non-binding resolution that is the equivalent of a vote of no confidence? And what will be the political consequences of what I think will be an unprecedented passage of such a vote? Obviously, in a parliamentary system, it would mean resignation and replacement.

Posted 11:43 AM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

Quick question. According to a recent Kevin Drum post the "back door draft" is a likely mechanism for finding troops for the surge.

I don't know if cutting that off is already included in the readiness bill, but if Congress has the authority to do so, that looks like a real winner. I'm not sure if you could get the votes to override a veto, but this seems like a good combination of substantial policy affect plus good politics.

However, I'm not sure that Congress regulates that sort of issue.

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:12 PM

I never thought I would type this, but I now long for a parliamentary system in the U.S.

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:17 PM

We do run run, we do run run ...

The Democrats are so rabid to humiliate Bush that they have no qualms about also humiliating America in the process and spitting on the graves of the more than three thousand soldiers who have died.

That the Republicans are almost as big a bunch of feckless political hacks ....

God help our country.

# posted by

nk : 1:50 PM

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

# posted by

nk : 1:51 PM

"nk" said:

The Democrats are so rabid to humiliate Bush that they have no qualms about also humiliating America in the process and spitting on the graves of the more than three thousand soldiers who have died.

I address that nonsense here.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:58 PM

nk: The Democrats are so rabid to humiliate Bush...

There's no need, as the c-in-c has proven himself such a military failure that the only question now is how to save our troops from further exposure to his toxic incompetence. The defeat is %100 Bush's to bear.

# posted by

Robert Link : 2:34 PM

On what precise basis will Mitch McConnell justify a filibuster against a non-binding resolution that is the equivalent of a vote of no confidence?

The vote of no confidence violates BCRA. And McConnell's filibuster is just as justifiable as filibusters of judicial nominees that would be confirmed were they to receive an up-or-down vote on the floor.

# posted by

Mortimer Brezny : 3:15 PM

I am not against trying to filibuster any resolution. But maybe the republicans could take the nuclear option off the table in case the find themselves in the majority again.

But would you care to explain with you superior intellect what the BCRA is to a stupid person such as myself?

# posted by

Anne : 3:24 PM

Mortimer Brezny said:

The vote of no confidence violates BCRA.

Huh?!? The The Bay Cities Racing Association? Another feint. Keep your eyes on the other hand, folks.

Pray tell, how does it do that, Mortimer?

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:09 PM

There is no such thing as a vote of no confidence in the U.S., so these resolutions cannot serve as their equivalent. Their political consequence is to demonstrate that the Democrats want to distance themselves from an unpopular war without accepting the responsibility for actually doing anything. Consider me underwhelmed.

Those having fond thoughts about parliamentary systems should consider that Tony Blair is still in No. 10 Downing despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war in the UK, and that Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz and still prime minister and defense minister of Israel, despite having lost almost all public confidence by their conduct of the 2006 war. (Personally, I'm happy about Blair's survival and completely dismayed by Olmert's and Peretz's.)

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:04 PM

Professor Levinson:

Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.

This is not exactly a great example of why the Congress should assume any measure of the President's Article II CiC power. You cannot command an army with a committee of over 400.

Query: On what precise basis will Mitch McConnell justify a filibuster against a non-binding resolution that is the equivalent of a vote of no confidence?

Because, just like the Dems can waste the Senate's time with a non-binding resolution rater than offering genuine defunding legislation, the GOP can filibuster that resolution for their own partisan reasons.

This is known as doing the People's work...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:20 PM

Truly a red letter day.

That's the first thing I've ever heard Rahm Emanuel say that didn't make me feel queasy. Probably because I'm just reading it and not hearing it out loud.

Definitely one of our party reps who should stay much further in the background -- he's obviously much to enamored of the limelight, or someone's not telling him how horrible his public presence is.

# posted by

A : 11:17 PM

>>And McConnell's filibuster is just as justifiable as filibusters of judicial nominees

It would really be too easy to point out the hypocrisy here, wouldn't it? Filibusters are justifiable when the other side has used them in the past? So when Democrats pointed out the countless times Republicans had filibustered judicial nominees in the past, they must have been just as justified in their attempts to use the filibuster, no? Oh, wait, when Republicans filibuster it is justifiable tit-for-tat; when Democrats filibuster they are "subverting the will of the people" and Senate rules should be changed immediately.

I knew this would happen once the shoe was on the other foot, but, honestly, I thought it would take more than a week.

# posted by

zod : 12:31 AM

"Bart" DePalma said:

Because, just like the Dems can waste the Senate's time with a non-binding resolution rater than offering genuine defunding legislation, the GOP can filibuster that resolution for their own partisan reasons.

This is known as doing the People's work...

No. This is known as "doing the People's work...."

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:17 AM