Is there a way for Democrats to avoid a futile showdown with President Bush over the war-funding bill and still get their timetable? Well, here's one idea:

Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding, if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza (Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias explains what this would mean:

That way in three months time, with public opinion even more against Bush and against the war, he needs to come back and ask for more money. Then Democrats pass another supplemental with a withdrawal provision. If Bush vetos again, then give him another three months eventually.

The point is to try to generate as many votes on this as possible. Either at some point we'll start seeing significant GOP defections (which is the best hope for ending the war while Bush is still president) or else at a minimum GOP incumbents will need to keep casting votes for perpetual war and set themselves up for defeat in 2008.

At least it's an interesting idea, but one with several problems. First, should Democrats present Bush with a three-month funding bill with no scheduled withdrawal date from Iraq, Bush would probably say that that's no different than a timetable. Result: Veto. None of the analyses I've read on the three-month plan takes into account that first presidential veto.

What would Democrats do then? Yglesias seems to suggest that Democrats should keep sending up three-month funding bills. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that's the same situation they are currently in. What's the political difference between sending the president one-year funding bills versus three-month funding bills? The former would be vetoed for including a timetable for withdrawal, the latter for disguising the timetable. The result of both is zero funding for the troops, which is exactly what Democrats are trying to avoid.

The other problem presents itself only if the president inexplicably signs the first three-month spending bill. Yglesias believes that the further along we go in this process, the more we'll start to see GOP defections. It's not an unreasonable scenario, but it's predicated on Iraq slipping ever further into chaos. If Iraq doesn't and the surge continues to yield progress, it could be Democrats, not Republicans, who will start to defect. In other words, it's a political risk, one that I imagine isn't too appealing to the Democratic leadership because it's entirely avoidable.