Congressional Dems: Slippin’ and Slidin’
I don't have a problem, in principle, with Congressional Democrats seeking a reasonable compromise with Republicans in order to come up with the broadest bi-partisan push to oppose the White House war policy.
Indeed, I suspect that in the end it will be more an election season-motivated Republican revolt rather than Democratic opposition that will have the most influence on White House policy.
I do, however, have a problem with abject Democratic surrender (well, not that much of a problem because I fully expect it). At first blush, the emerging agreement between Senators Levin and Warner to sponsor a single, unified resolution opposing the troop surge --instead of pushing two disparate motions-- looks like a good idea.
Unfortunately, the unified motion explicitly surrenders the only real power Congress has i.e. to cut-off funding for the war. In fact, the new compromise measure promises not to do so. Says the Washington Post:
The revised resolution would express the Senate's opposition to the troop increase but would vow to protect funding for the troops. The resolution does not include the Democratic language saying the Bush plan is against the national interest, but it also drops an earlier provision by Warner suggesting Senate support for some additional troops.So there you have it, my friends. In cold black and white a clear statement of the usual Democratic weaseliness. This just seems like the Democrats going two or three bridges too far. Play it out a bit. This non-binding resolution will be passed. The White House will arrogantly wipe its rear end with it, and the action will be back on Congress. What move will have the Democrats left themselves? With this resolution they will have gone on the record promising a continuing flow of war funding. I would love to be wrong, but I am more convinced than ever that we are nowhere near the end of this conflict. Congress --with or without the Democratic majority-- appears to be unwilling to assert its constitutional role as the first and equal power with the executive. The Democrats, sorry, strike me as plain loathsome. In the current math of political opinion, it's the Republicans who who are stuck with the unpopular piece of the equation. In any compromise on the war, it's the Congressional Republicans who ought to be going the extra mile and giving up the most. But why bother when the Democrats are so willing to cave? P.S. Meanwhile, thanks to Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki. He's one of the few elected officials in the American system (by extension) who's willing to speak up against war with Iran. The ironies here are way too rich to warrant any further comment.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,073 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
ST. JOHN, Jon B. II, 25, Pfc. Army; Neenah, Wis.; First Cavalry Division.
SWANSON, Timothy A., 21, Cpl., Army; San Antonio; First Cavalry Division.
TOOMALATAI, David T., 19, Pfc., Army; Long Beach, Calif.; First Cavalry Division.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:46 am
btw, one argument often put forward for why we should get out of Iraq is that our troops are needed for the fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban. In a way, the situation in Afghanistan has been the elephant in the room, and that is true for both the left and right. I have seen very, very few commentaries on the likelihood of success there and especially on the experience of the Soviets and their failure despite throwing much more at it than NATO is. An interesting commentary in the International Herald Tribune today from a Rand analyst, you don’t have to agree with all of it but worth reading:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/opinion/edjones.php
February 1st, 2007 at 7:57 am
I found THIS very humorous…
Watching news yesterday evening I had on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) and they reportedo n how Al Maliki “doesn’t want America to use Iraq as base for war with Iran” and tangentialyl mentioned that he also doesn’t want the obverse. Then at the ad I switched it to CNN and the same story – but reversed was shown…Al Maliki doesn’t want Iran to use Iraq as a base for war with the US….and then a tangential mention of the obverse.
Of course both are “true”, as true as it gets. But it is clear that Al Malik himself – and I’m no great fan of this thug – was putting weight on the US, not Iran.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:35 am
The way I heard it on CNN yesterday and today on three separate occasions was the US first with Iran mentioned equally.
Indeed, this headline implies equal weight as does the quote from the interview conudcted by Michael Ware for CNN:
February 1st, 2007 at 10:28 am
We’ve got to fight the terrorists in Iran so we don’t have to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight the terrorists over here!
February 1st, 2007 at 10:28 am
I tend to agree that the Dems should drive a harder bargain. It think ATRIOS noted that Dems tend to make their desired outcome the STARTING position in negotiations whereas the correct thing to do is ask for something more and then “Compromise” down to the place they wanted to be anyway. The GOP has been much better at this and as I pointed out once the proof is their 2001 tax cut where their opening position was for a “humongous” tax cut and the Settled” for an enormous one.
Marc is also right that the public is way ahead. But the problem here is, I think, a wariness on the part of some leaders to believe this. Too much listening to the Great and Good and not enough trusting of what the polls and their anectdotal evidence should tell them.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:32 am
And while we’re on the subject of public opinion, today is the day that MoveOn.Org is sponsoring a “Virtual” martch on DC by trying to get a million people to E-Mail their representative and Senators to get the troops out. You can get the details on their websight. Maybe if enough people do this it will have an effect since a blitz like that would be hard to ignore.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Good one, Mavis.
February 1st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Actually Mavis apparently we have to fight them at Turner Broadcasting!
February 1st, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I think I got a bit of a handle today on what is wrong up there in “The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.” Today Lawrence O’Donnell was sitting in for the soon-to-be departed Al Franken (Wonder what he’s going to do now?) and he was talking politics with a Washington columnist. O’Donnell you may know was Chief of Staff to the Senate Finance Committee under Daniel Patrick Moynihan and considers himself an expert on the workings of the Senate. And he probably is. Point of all this was both agreed that it did’t matter what the resolution said as long as it said “The Senate Disapproves of the conduct of the War” since this was an important first step and only the first step. That other bills would follow – particularly when Bush’s call for more funds comes in a few weeks. All well and good I thought but while that may be the way business is conducted there it is missing the real anxiety in the country to get this over with. A recent poll showed 64% thought Congress wasn’t agressive enough on this and wanted more definitive action. I think that is right.
We often hear of the “Presidential Bubble”. Well I think there is a bubble around the Senate too – from what I see the House may be more active, particularly after Nancy Pelosi’s remarks after coming home from Iraq. But, in either case, what used to be called “Potomac Fever” and is know called the “Beltway Mentality” infects a lot of the people up there. That is why I think the MoveOn effort today and the efforts of Andy Stern of SEIU thru organizations like WeWon’tWait and They Work for US are so important. That Demonstration was all well and good but a few million E-Mails to Congress can have a Tonic Effect.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Both Sens Feingold and Dodd have announced that they will vote against the Resolution denouncing it as a sham since it is “Non-binding”. I suspect others may join and this means its passage may be dubious.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,074 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday:
EMUL, Adam Q., 19, Lance Cpl., Marines; Vancouver, Wash.; First Marine Division.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Couldn’t you post a link for us to NYT’s video scoop of one of our soldiers dieing, posted by NYT on their website, before his family was even notified MB? Wouldn’t that help us here on Marc’s Blog more clearly understand the human costs of war? I wonder of WAPO’s got the video of the sniper doing the deed on their website? We can only hope……no?
I don’t think your posts here, and NYTs posts, and WAPOs posts have a fucking thing to do with honoring the dead sir. I think it has everthing to do with your rabid passivist anti-war protests. Fuck the dead and their families. There are much more important things than common decency…..no?
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 am
Jim R’s all hugs-kisses-kumbaya when the killing comes home, but all iron fist when the victims are from somewhere else. The war’s one big psychodrama for him, apparently…
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:15 am
Iraqis are dying at a rate that, on average, might amount to a few dozen per hour. But the death that’s supposed to be so meaningful to us today, the one that’s supposed to sum up the tragedy of this war over the last 24 hours (during which hundreds of Iraqis might have died from one war-related cause or another) is the death of one Adam Q. Emul, about whom Michael Balter knows nothing except age, rank, service branch, hometown and division. (And that’s assuming he even bothered to read the (ex-)vitae he was loading into the clip of his information machine gun). As far as I can tell, Jim R doesn’t really care very much either. It’s all about who’s right and who’s wrong, in their world, from what I can tell. Is anybody up for actually trying to figure out how to solve the real problems here? Anybody willing to take in a 360-degree view, but also able to admit they aren’t 100% sure of what they’re looking at?
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 am
rlc writes: “We often hear of the “Presidential Bubbleâ€. Well I think there is a bubble around the Senate too ….”
No, it’s just politics as usual. They can read the polls as well as you do, probably better. After all, it’s part of their job. They can see that Congress isn’t getting any higher marks from Americans than Bush is. But they can also see that most Americans approve of their representatives in Congress, even if they don’t approve of Congress as a whole. They know that most seats are safe, and worry about how to keep their own seat safe. Politicians deal in votes as business people deal in money. Opinions in the national aggregate mean little to them — it’s individual constituencies that get their attention. Just as your average CEO doesn’t stress out over GDP per capita — they look at their own market, their own bottom line. Chris Dodd is a pacifist until it comes to spending on those submarines armed with nuclear-tipped missiles that get built in his state. Go down the list and you’ll find other stories not very different from his. Welcome to the sausage factory — it’s how representative democracy works.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
We all know that the Dems will cave and allow the huge erection, or whatever GWB is calling it, to go through. It’s also certain they will vote for the now-100B war appropriation.
Here is a modest proposal for a better way to support our troops. There are currently about 150K US troops in Iraq. The CBO now reports that, perhaps due to GWB’s having been in the closet snorting coke when they taught arithmetic at Andover, he reported as 21,500 the strength of units that actually total about 50,000 personnel. Thus, in a couple of months there will be about 200,000 US troops in country. $100B divided by 200,000 = $500,000. Let’s buy each soldier a first class air ticket back to the states for perhaps $4,000, give each one a Yale education for $200,000 and give them each a $46,000 bonus. Deposit the other 50B into the Medicare trust fund. We all win, no?
February 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Yes and no MT. Sure they read the polls but they also “read” the received opinion of the DC insiders. Like the ones that told Democrats last year not to talk about Iraq. People like Jim Webb and Jon Tester talked about it because they felt it was right. But, at first, the advice of Chuck Schumer and the DSCC was to avoid it. That, of course, was not what polls were saying and after the election the exit polls showed that Iraq and Corruption were the two big issues.
And please note that the DOD only releases names when the families have been notified.
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Looks like the listing of the names of the dead is getting to some people. Good.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
“That, of course, was not what polls were saying and after the election the exit polls showed that Iraq and Corruption were the two big issues.”
Which is what the polls were saying *before* the election. So what?
The question here is whether it’s strategically smart for a politician to tell voters in advance what the mandate will be, or to let voters “tell” them that afterward. Depends on the situation. Sometimes “the people” want to be led, other times they want to lead.
My point was that politicians are elected by constituencies, not by what “the general public” thinks. What works for Jim Webb won’t necessarily work for Hillary. Chuck Hagel can say what he says because Nebraska is basically a blue state (Hagel was its first GOP Senator in 24 years), and he’s hugely popular there.
For all the outcry over Iraq, a pretty large section of voters (46% last I checked) say that how a candidate stands on Iraq is not going to make a big difference in how they vote. Your average politician wins or loses depending on an accumulation of small effects; they’ll avoid the big issues as long as possible, if there’s any ambiguity. When Standing Tall Against the War becomes a winning position for most of them, just watch how fast the fog dissipates.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
“Looks like the listing of the names of the dead is getting to some people. Good.”
Oh, yeah. “Provocation is good.” *This* from the guy who (half-apologetically) spit on Molly Ivin’s grave with the verdict that she was part of degrading the quality of debate.
Was it Stalin who said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is statistic? I guess that’s an argument for reporting one single American death, while dozens of Iraqis die the same day.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Like I said.