WHERE DOES CONGRESS GO FROM HERE?

Apparently Michael McNutly (D-NY)-- who joined the 6 reactionary Democrats to vote with the Republicans to sustain Bush's veto-- says he voted "no" because he refuses to vote for one more dime to go over to Iraq except to be used to bring our troops home safely. The other 6 are just voting the way they think-- like Republicans. I can't wait for the DCCC to send out their next fundraising letter begging for John Barrow, a perennial "Front Line" candidate.

Now let's marvel for a moment at the leadership exercised by Speaker Pelosi and her team in holding the rest of the caucus together, particularly a gaggle of red-district Democrats with miserably reactionary Iraq voting records. Other than Barrow (GA), Boren (OK), Davis (TN), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT), and Taylor (MS), the leadership held them all together, an admirable accomplishment. Voting to override Bush's veto were Bud Cramer (AL), Vic Snyder (AR), Tim Holden (PA), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Collin Peterson (MN), Chet Edwards (TX), and the other pro-war Democrats who have most consistently supported Bush's Iraq agenda (like Howard Berman (CA) and Steve Israel (NY). And none of the right-of-center freshmen-- not Shuler (NC), Mahoney (FL), Lampson (TX), the 3 from Indiana... abandoned the Democrats when push came to shove.

So what happens now? Congressional leaders met with the commander guy fruit loop and there was no progress at all. A compromise is being hammered out with congressional Republicans. There are two options that are being discussed in the cloakrooms tonight: Murtha's "short-leash" plan, which will give Bush a money for a couple months and make him keep coming back; and a more likely scenario of giving him what he wants along with some weak, unenforceable benchmarks and no timeline.