Senator Reid, why not call for an up-or-down vote on Bush's surge plan?

And no, this isn't what you're already doing. Let me explain.

The House is getting ready to vote today on a resolution critical of Bush's Iraq "surge." This is the same resolution that you, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), are going to try to bring up for debate in the Senate tomorrow, Saturday. If the Republicans continue to filibuster the Senate even debating Bush's surge plan, let alone filibustering a vote on the plan, which is what Senate GOP leaders are hoping happens, then let me humbly propose a Plan B.

In the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation, forget the Warner resolution, forget the McCain resolution, forget the House resolution. Forget any other Democratic resolutions that are out there. If Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can't agree as to whose resolution should be debated and voted on, fine. There's only one resolution that matters anyway, George Bush's. (Yes, I know he doesn't have a resolution, read on.)

Announce that the Senate is at an impasse, trash the other resolutions (House, Democratic, Republican), and call up Bush's "surge" plan for an up-or-down vote. Senator Reid, introduce your own resolution describing Bush's plan. Don't play any games with the wording of the resolution, simply put Bush's plan in writing in the form a resolution that supports the surge - period. (I'd recommend you use Bush's speech in which he announces the surge plan, and simply quote the President verbatim in the "whereas" sections of the resolution.) Then call for the Senate to debate and vote on whether it supports the president's own plan. Not the Warner resolution, not the House resolution, but the PRESIDENT'S OWN PLAN.

The advantages of this?

1. All other resolutions become extraneous. No one can offer a competing resolution since per se it won't be germane to the surge (well, they can, but they'll look silly). Cutting off money to troops? Not relevant to debating the surge. Withdrawing all troops immediately? Not relevant to debating the surge. It will be clear to the public that anyone who stops the president's resolution from going forward is simply being obstructionist.

2. Any Republican or Democrat who votes to filibuster this resolution will be filibustering a resolution approving of Bush's plan. A marked difference from filibustering a resolution critical of the president. It's one thing for Republicans to argue that a resolution critical of the president emboldens the enemy and hurts the morale of the troops, but how are they going to block a resolution that lauds the plan the commander in chief is currently implementing?

3. With this approach, you look the above-the-fray leader to the American people. You threw partisanship out the window, got rid of the Democratic and Republican plans, and decided to be a straight shooter and give the president's plan the up-or-down vote it deserves. That's something that no American could disagree with. And anyone who stands in the way will be marked as the bad guy.

Now, I suspect that you probably think the current Warner resolution, or even the House resolution, ARE the president's plan. I'd argue that they're not. Those resolutions are critical of Bush's surge. They're critical of the president, albeit well-deserved. In order to give the president and his supporters MORE than a fair shake, simply offer up the president's plan, unfettered by any critical language or other excess verbiage. I'd go so far as to write the resolution using only direct quotes from the president. Make it ALL his language describing the surge and why it's needed.

Then let's see the GOP claim that the debate and vote is unfair when the only thing being debated and voted on is the president's language detailing and praising the president's plan.