Senator Mitch McConnell, the newly installed Senate minority leader, may be helping the Democrats--unintentionally. After Senate Deems threatened to introduce a non-binding resolution that would express disapproval of George W. Bush's decision to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq, McConnell threatened to filibuster the bill. In the Senate, the minority can stop most legislation with 40 votes.

But such a move would only assist the Senate Democrats--by making it appear as if they were actually doing something to stop Bush's escalation of the war. (Bush's latest plan is opposed by two-thirds of the public, according to various opinion polls.)

Despite the Senate Democrats' aversion to Bush's decision to deploy more troops, most of them are only willing to strike at the president with a nonbinding resolution. Unlike the House Democrats, they are not considering withholding funding for Bush's so-called surge. A few Senate Democrats, such as Russell Feingold and Ted Kennedy, do want to take concrete steps to thwart Bush, but Senate Leader Harry Reid is not among them.

The best White House reaction to Reid's threatened nonbinding resolution would be a polite but dismissive response: Thank you for your views. In good faith, we disagree, and we'll be proceeding with the policy we deem best. If McConnell filibusters--and one can assume he would only do so if the White House wants a filibuster--the battle over the nonbinding resolution would take on greater significance and draw even more attention than it might otherwise.

So if this filibuster comes to pass, the Senate Democrats would look as if they were really doing something--not merely stating an opinion. Reid must be thinking, "Mitch, bring it on! Please!"

By the way, it's uncertain that McConnell could muster the 40 votes. There are 49 Republicans, but ten or so have voiced either opposition or hesitation regarding Bush's plan. McConnell might pick up the vote of Senator Joe Lieberman, Democrat-turned-independent, But the political momentum at the moment is against the president--even within his own party.

Which brings me to a cute idea proposed by Paul Begala, Democratic consultant and talking head. On CNN yesterday, he suggested that the Democrats not introduce a measure decrying Bush's plan. Instead, he said, they ought to put up a bill declaring support for Bush's surge. The Democrats, of course, would vote against this bill. (There's no law saying you have to support a bill you introduce.) But Reid would place the Senate Republicans in a tight spot by forcing them to vote on such a measure. Would McConnell filibuster it? If he did, that would look rather absurd.

This sort of stunt would not do anything to slow down Bush's escalation, but it would be an imaginative political maneuver that would tie GOPers to Bush's policy. After all, how many Republicans want to endorse explicitly Bush's unpopular expansion of this unpopular war?

Posted by David Corn at January 12, 2007 09:39 AM