Novak: Murtha's Slow Bleed Plan Is Likely to Pass
By Greg Tinti
According to Bob Novak, the only way Murtha's slow bleed plan can be stopped is if there's a Democratic coup in the Senate.
After 16 undistinguished terms in Congress, Rep. John P. Murtha at long last felt his moment had arrived. He could not keep quiet the secret Democratic strategy that he had forged for the promised "second step" against President Bush's Iraq policy (after the "first step" of a nonbinding resolution of disapproval). In an interview last Thursday with the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org, he revealed plans to put conditions on funding of U.S. troops. His message: I am running this show.
Indeed he is. Murtha and his ally House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were humiliated last Nov. 16 when the Democratic caucus overwhelmingly voted against Murtha as majority leader. Three months later, Murtha has shaped party policy that would cripple Bush's Iraq troop surge by placing conditions on funding. That represents the most daring congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities since the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War challenged President Abraham Lincoln. ...
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not quite getting how Novak's math adds up. The Senate is currently divided 51-49. Obviously, Lieberman won't vote for the Murtha plan and there will probably be a number of other Democratic defectors as well. But even if it's just Lieberman, Cheney gets to be the tie breaker and the bill still goes down. So how is Murtha's plan an inevitability then? What am I missing?
I think the confusion here centers on Novak's statement that "appropriations have to be passed and cannot be filibustered." Is that some sort of standing rule in the Senate or is he just assuming Senate Republicans won't turn off the tap and shut down the government like happened in '95? I'm tired. Maybe it'll all be clear come morning.
