I don’t pretend to be the world’s greatest lawyer, but I have learned a thing or two about negotiating in the years since I was sworn to the bar. One thing I learned, in fact, one thing I always sort of knew, is that you don’t do this:
With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.
After short-circuiting consideration of votes on some bipartisan proposals on Iraq before the August break, senior Democrats now say they are willing to rethink their push to establish a withdrawal deadline of next spring if doing so will attract the 60 Senate votes needed to prevail.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”
That’s a little like telling the other attorney: “I would like you to pay my client $50,000.00, but if you say “No” I’ll probably take $20.” At first blush you might think that, though stupid, this approach is not so terrible. After all, you end up with $20K, don’t you? Well, no, you probably end up with 10. It is never smart to walk into negotiations with an opening declaration of weakness.
At least one Senator, our own Chris Dodd, who almosts redeems Connecticut from the shame that is Joe Lieberman, is having none of it:
“Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq you have lost this Democrat’s vote.
“Despite the fact that this has been the bloodiest summer of the war and report after report says that there has been little to no political progress, the White House continues to argue that their strategy is working.
“It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this President or end this war.
“I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order.
“I urge my colleagues to join me and declare their opposition to this measure.”
Have the Democrats no collective memory? They were recently in the Senate minority. On what important issue did the merely declare an intent to filibuster and immediately win their point? I can’t remember a single instance. Yet they proactively surrender (is that an oxymoron?…quasi maybe) to an unannounced Republican filibuster on the most important issue before them. It is totally beyond them to consider that if they make the Republicans actually filibuster, and if they frame that filibuster as the obstruction of the American will that it is, that they just might succeed, or at the very least get a compromise that moves in their direction, rather than moves at warp speed away from it.
Where are the other present Senators, would be Presidents on this issue? Their running on leadership, it would be nice to see some. John Edwards has been great on this, but he’s not in the Senate.
