Only if they didn't offer. So long as they offer and the president refuses it isn't a loss for them at all.

It is still a loss for them because they didn't meet their objectives. This isn't a zero-sum game, it is possible for both sides to lose.

If your goal is to buy a car for a little money as possible, and you end up walking out of the dealership without making a deal, you failed in half of your objectives.(This analogy provided specifically for Christopher, cheers).

Like I said...disgusting.

And please stop with the car bargaining! That makes absolutely no sense at all in this regard. Morons.

In the end, they're too cowardly to fight for anything....

The Democrats want the troops to have the money as much as the President does, not getting it to them would be as much a loss for them as for Bush.

Only if they didn't offer. So long as they offer and the president refuses it isn't a loss for them at all.

The Democrats want the troops to have the money as much as the President does, not getting it to them would be as much a loss for them as for Bush.

Tialoc, if you think that the Dems have all the power, what happend to the veto override?

True they can;t override the veto. But then again the president is the one asking them for money, not vice versa. they can simply give him the same bill again and again, or an even harsher bill each time. He's on the clock, they aren't. He's the one preventing funds from going to the troops. Not them. He's the one the public doesn't trust to manage the conflict. Not them.

And pretty soon there are going to be a lot of republicans clambering over each other in their haste to abandon him.

Some of you posters here need to review the constitution one more time. The areas of oversite of the executive branch by the legislative branch are spelled out. They do not include war fighting.

Alright, tell you what, since you know your constitution so well why don't you direct me to the article that allows the president to get funds without congressional approval?

It must be in there somewhere since you are infering that this appropriations bill is unconstitutional...

I thought Congress made laws, and that "policy" was how the executive enforced those laws.

I guess it depends on what you want to call policy. Our drug policy, as I see it, is that a large numebr of drugs are illegal. That was decided by Congress, not the President. Our current foreign policy is a pseudo-war with Iraq. Again decided by Congress (Bush asked them to approve military force). And so on...

The point is to ask for more than you expect, while putting up the front that you believe the offer is perfectly fair to the other side. You want the other side to think they are coming out ahead by making you back down from your initial offer. If the other side doesn't think your initial offer was earnest, they don't win anything by talking you back just a little, and they will push for a larger concession.

Sure, except in this case the dems have all the leverage. they are holding every card: they have the congressional majorities and the public backing. So the idea of what constitutes a fair middle ground should be way way to the left. Instead they're playing as if Bush has any real say in the matter (and he doesn't except in so much as they let him).

In other words they walk on to the car lot ot find a number of gangsters pulling out the dealer's toenails because he owesd them money he can't repay. They can name their price if they just have the balls to do so.

No that's backwards. Congress makes policy, the exectuive's role is to enforce that policy.

I thought Congress made laws, and that "policy" was how the executive enforced those laws.

Then their opening offer should have been "immediate end of the war, war crimes trial for cheney, and impeachment of bush."

For the same reason nobody's first offer on a car is $1.

The point is to ask for more than you expect, while putting up the front that you believe the offer is perfectly fair to the other side. You want the other side to think they are coming out ahead by making you back down from your initial offer. If the other side doesn't think your initial offer was earnest, they don't win anything by talking you back just a little, and they will push for a larger concession.

Guess what, they ain't gonna stand up...

"No that's backwards"

...my bad.

the offices of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are denying a Washington Post story today saying that Congressional Democrats have backed down to the White House by offering to remove Iraq withdrawal language from the now-vetoed Iraq bill.

Pelosi just went before the Democratic caucus and informed them that the story's false, a Pelosi aide tells me. WaPo is standing by the story, and the lead writer of the Post piece, Jonathan Weisman, told me that leadership aides told him that the withdrawal language had to go. But the WaPo story goes further than that, saying explicitly that Dems have already "backed down" and offered the concession of removing the withdrawal language. Those aren't the same thing.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/05/pelosis_office.php

Mr. Joyner, you might want to put this link in an update on the main post.