Scrambling to head off a potentially embarrassing congressional rebuke for President Bush’s troop buildup, the Los Angeles Times reports that Senate Republicans are working on alternative legislation that would attach specific “benchmarks” to the White House plan for Iraq.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the leading congressional advocate of deploying additional troops to quell the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the party’s leading presidential candidate despite being a supporter of Bush’s Iraq war policy since day one, said Thursday that he was interested in a resolution to ensure that effectiveness of the troop increase could be gauged.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the president’s most loyal supporters on Capitol Hill, said he might introduce a similar resolution.

“It says we need to give it a chance,” Cornyn said, echoing the president’s State of the Union plea to lawmakers Tuesday to give his plan a chance to work. “We owe it to our servicemen and servicewomen to say what we’re for, not just what we’re against.”

The maneuvering comes after a rough two weeks for GOP lawmakers, who have been struggling to respond to Bush’s deeply unpopular proposal to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 in the coming months.

If McCain and Cornyn introduce resolutions, they could draw support away from other resolutions that directly oppose the buildup, and could cast Democratic opposition as needless impediments to progress in Iraq.

Six Republican senators have already expressed support for one of two resolutions that explicitly criticize the Bush plan, bringing Senate Democrats close to the GOP support needed to override any filibuster.

1. The more critical of the two — sponsored by Sens. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — was approved Wednesday by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and sent to the Senate floor.
2. The second non-binding resolution — put together by Sens. John Warner (R-Va.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — has the support of seven other senators, including two Republicans.

The White House has been working hard to derail both of the resolutions, which — although non-binding — would mark the first time Congress has challenged Bush’s leadership of the 4-year-old war.

Continue reading this article …

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted, largely along party lines, to oppose the president’s deployment of additional troops in Iraq - setting the stage for a full Senate debate on the war next week, according to the Chicago Tribune.

But what does it even matter?

“This is slow-walking,” complained Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who called for timetables for withdrawals of U.S. forces, but reluctantly supported the non-binding resolution opposing the chief executive’s new Iraq policy.

Some who oppose the troop deployment say the non-binding resolution is a hollow statement and want to restrict funding for any escalation. Others agree that it’s a hollow statement and believe (correctly) that President George W. Bush will be undeterred, proceeding to deploy another 21,500 troops in Iraq.

But the committee has, at the very least, set the stage for congressional debate on the Iraq war, with the resolution declaring that “it is not in the national interest” of the U.S. to escalate its involvement.

The 12 to 9 vote, which included Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska joining the 11 Democrats on the committee, followed the rejection of a tougher approach offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn., pictured below, at right), who wanted a measure saying U.S. force levels in Iraq could not exceed their levels of January 16 - days after Bush announced his proposed troop surge.

Dodd’s bid lost, 15 to 6, and while the presidential hopeful eventually voting for the non-binding measure, he admitted that the resolution is toothless.

“We must demonstrate we are prepared to lead on this issue, not simply sit back, fearful of taking positions most of us believe are in the interest of our country,” he said.

Continue reading this article …

As they prepare to take control of Congress and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking, the Palm Beach Post reports.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours, including tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to participate fully in deliberations, as Democrats promised after their November 7 wins, majority party members now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of bills and the trumpeting of early victories.

Nancy Pelosi of California (pictured), who will become Speaker of the House, and Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will become majority leader, finalized the strategy in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with other party leaders over the holiday recess.

A few Democrats, worried that the party would be criticized for backing off such an important pledge, argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans greater latitude when the Congress convenes Thursday.

The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the party in power:

• Democrats must demonstrate that they can break legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th Congress a civil era in which both parties can work together.
• On the flip side, in attempting to pass laws viewed as critical to their prospects for winning re-election and establishing a larger (and lasting) majority, Democrats may have to hard-fisted techniques - the same ones Republicans used and were criticized for.

Democratic leaders are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing their bills. In turn, House Republicans are already complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively.

Some Republicans are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, partly built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats’ slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

The Democrats intend to introduce their first bills within hours of taking the oath of office Thursday. The first legislation will focus on behavior of lawmakers: banning travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists, and requiring lawmakers to attach their names to spending directives and certify that such earmarks would not financially benefit the lawmaker.

That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule. Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow Republican input into the ethics package and other early legislation because several of the bills already have been debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the minimum wage.

Democrats say they are still committed to sharing power with the minority down the line.