Politics > Politics-USA > EVEN LEFT-WING POND SCUM DAVID CORN(HOLE) ADMITS: "The Dems' Self-Defeat on the Iraq War Vote"
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 May 2007 09:11:29 AM |
| Object: |
EVEN LEFT-WING POND SCUM DAVID CORN(HOLE) ADMITS: "The Dems' Self-Defeat on the Iraq War Vote" |
"The Democrats tried at first to have it both ways and ended up with
nothing--except a flood of resentment from their core supporters."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=199204
For the Democrats, the question was, what to do next? Antiwar
advocates, such as the members of MoveOn, demanded the Dems hang
tough. Former Senator John Edwards, a presidential candidate, called
for Pelosi and Reid to keep passing the same bill in defiance of
Bush's veto, as Edwards sought to pressure two rivals, Senators
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The media portrayed the episode as a
showdown between congressional Democrats and Bush. The key issue: who
would blink first?
The answer came on Thursday night when the Democratic leaders of the
House and Senate essentially turned tail and allowed votes on a $120
billion war funding measure containing weak benchmarks and little in
the way of consequences should the Iraqi government fall short. GOPers
provided most of the support for the legislation, but in the House 86
Democrats voted for it (including such leaders as Representatives
Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel, James Clyburn and John Murtha). In the
Senate, 37 of 50 Democrats went along. Toward the end of the vote in
the Senate, Obama voted nay; then Hillary Clinton followed suit.
The war continues. No checks, no balances.
Grassroots and antiwar Democrats who expected their party's win last
November to lead to the war's end are enraged. As they see it--and
accurately so--a Democratic-controlled Congress has failed to halt or
slow Bush's war in Iraq, even though public opinion polls show that a
majority of Americans favor establishing a withdrawal timetable. And,
worse, many Democrats have now voted to give the war, with the ongoing
escalation, another chance. The Democratic Party leaders stand
alienated from their base--while congressional Republicans, though out
of step with popular sentiment, are in sync with their core
supporters.
Was such an unhappy (for the Democrats) outcome inevitable? Probably.
The Democrats do not have the votes to stop the war, even in their own
caucus--unless they are audaciously willing to defy majority rule
(say, by preventing war funding legislation from reaching the floor).
Most House Democrats do favor withdrawing from Iraq. Days ago, 169
House Democrats (and two Republicans) voted for such a measure. And 28
Democratic senators voted for a similar bill. Yet a significant
minority of Democrats are aligned with almost all the Republicans in
opposition to a legislatively-mandated pullback. Some of these
Democrats may believe in the war; many probably fear being blamed for
the ugly consequences that could ensue in Iraq following a removal of
US troops. In any event, the Democrats were mathematically destined to
disappoint those hoping they would suffocate Bush's war in Iraq.
The denouement, though, did not have to be so dismal for the
Democrats. If the Democrats had at the start not attempted to outfox
an uncompromising commander in chief, they could have reaped the
rewards of moral (or political) clarity. Had Pelosi offered a bill
forcing a withdrawal of US forces within a year, she would have lost
the vote on that measure. But she would have been in a position to
declare, "Most of the Democratic Party want to end this war, but
because some of our members (and practically all of the Republicans)
disagree, we cannot pass legislation to achieve this...yet." A clear
picture would have been painted: the war belongs to Bush and the
Republicans.
After that, Pelosi could have permitted the Republicans to bring
forward an appropriations bill for the war. The Democrats could have
offered various benchmarks, conditions, timetables, and deadlines via
amendments. Most would have failed, a few (but no withdrawal
deadlines) might have passed. Again, there would be clarity. The
narrative would have been that the Democrats first tried to stop the
war and then attempted to place limits on the war. If they failed,
they failed. Sure, there still would have been anger from the base at
those Democrats who bucked the Democratic gameplan. But the party's
grassroots and netroots--and the rest of the public--would have seen
that the Democratic leadership had endeavored to change course in
Iraq.
The House Democratic leaders can now contend that they did try to
force a change on Bush and point to the 140 Dems who voted against the
war funding bill. But this claim cannot overcome the appearance of
Democratic strategizing gone awry. The Democrats created too much
confusing context for their failure. Bush had a simple position: I
want my war the way I want it, and if the Democrats don't give it to
me, they'll be harming the troops and bear responsibility for whatever
ill befalls America from the evildoers. The Democrats presented a
series of hard-to-follow and hard-to-explain gyrations. They were
rolled.
At the end of the day, Bush and the GOP--who are on the wrong side of
public opinion on the war--came out political winners. And the
Democrats looked divided, confused, and weak. Which brings me back to
the first point. In politics, you can sometimes turn a liability (not
enough votes) into an asset, if you play for a clean loss that sends
the right message. That's not what happened on this round.
.
|
|
| User: "Frank Arthur" |
|
| Title: Re: EVEN LEFT-WING POND SCUM DAVID CORN(HOLE) ADMITS: "The Dems' Self-Defeat on the Iraq War Vote" |
26 May 2007 09:17:55 AM |
|
|
You don't mind the US spending 100 Billion Dollars on Iraq till
September? Tell me about the "spend & spend liberal Democrats"??
<PissingOffTheLeft@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1180188689.726754.224220@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"The Democrats tried at first to have it both ways and ended up with
nothing--except a flood of resentment from their core supporters."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
