Just doing some supposin' here.
Novakula in WaPo counts 12 Republicans who won't go along with Bush's "surge." Lieberman is the only non-Republican on Bush's side. That adds up to 62 Senators opposed. Biden has explicitly declared his intention to block any troop escalation. A filibuster can be busted with 60 votes for cloture. So that means there exists, for example, the possibility of legislation forbidding escalation (with a companion bill in the House).
Presuming such legislation would be met with a veto, the question of overriding arises. According to the Congressional Research Office, "Congressional procedure and tradition, not the Constitution, have determined that a vote of two-thirds of either or both houses of Congress means a vote of two-thirds of those Members present and voting (provided there is a quorum) and not, as is the practice in some states, two-thirds of those elected."
Because sustaining a veto in such a case, and allowing Bush to have his "surge," could prove to be reelection suicide for many Republicans in both House and Senate, those who don't wish to be expressly seen opposing Bush and voting to override might find themselves with conflicted schedules which prevent them from casting votes at all. Meaning the quorum numbers could likely favor the Democrats.
Lots of "ifs" and "maybes" with which to contend, but the Congressional Research Office says that since 1969, Congress has overridden about 1 out of every 5 (18.3%) regular vetoes. And if a veto were to be successfully overridden, the benefit of preventing escalation would accrue to the Democrats generically, and Bush would be perceived as not just hated but weak. And the further legislative implications of that circumstance would be considerable.
update:
The way I had read Novak, I thought he meant to say that at least a dozen Republicans were opposed to Bush's "surge" proposal. Steve Soto reads Novak instead to say Bush "can count on only 13 votes for an escalation in the Senate," which may well be correct, and more vigorously reinforces the point that Bush will have a big congressional obstacle to overcome.
Please consider supporting our work.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
