Kos: " . . . where do we go from here?"

[bigtree]

from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/24/125131/249

" . . . let's talk about pragmatism. We've got our bill, Bush is going to veto it (if it makes it past a Senate filibuster). Now what? We kept hearing that if we didn't pass this bill, then the next one is going to be even weaker. So what happens to the next one, the one they have to put together after the veto? The leadership is somehow going to have to figure out a way to recapture a great deal of ceded ground on this one, and how they are going to accomplish that one remains pretty murky.

My very pragmatic observation of the Iraq supplemental was that in cobbling together a bill that could make it through the House and set up the veto showdown with Bush, the leadership was setting a very, very low baseline with the Blue Dogs, negotiating away too much substance. In that, we've won a decisive PR skirmish. That's helpful in weakening Bush, most definitely. It's as yet unclear, however, as to how that fits in to the larger battle plan to make significant progress on actually getting the troops out. At the risk of now becoming a "concern troll" in addition to being a "purity troll," where do we go from here?

the next step . . .

The leader of the Senate opposition to the original Iraq War Resolution, Robert Byrd, will be leading the next assault on Bush's budget request for Iraq from his position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Byrd had called the IWR a "blank check" as he stood against its passage.

my question . . .

Assuming you want the Senate to pass the revised budget request,

should they try and craft a bill which attracts the most votes (the 11 or so republicans who would make it veto-proof), or should they just aim for a simple majority (providing the republicans don't filibuster)?

The goal would affect the content, I believe.

[Eric J in MN]

1. They should try to pass a bill with just enough money to leave Iraq.

(Assuming the current bill doesn't become law.)