Cave-In Or Smart Politics?
It would be instructive, at this point, to stop and examine how the Democrats got here.
First of all, at the risk of insulting your intelligence by restating the bleeding obvious let's stipulate that the people do not make policy. We -- the people -- elect representatives who do that. So when you hear that the people want the Iraq occupation to end yesterday, their representatives have to make their own individual calculation, namely this: What do my individual constituents want? And what will I have give up to give them that?
For example...let's say (for the sake of discussion) that 61% of the electorate is against the war. But as Michael Tomasky points out, the number 61 also holds significance in another context:
That's the number of Democrats in the House of Representatives who represent districts that Bush carried in 2004 (by contrast, only eight Republicans represent districts that John Kerry won). Many of these 61 are scared to death that they could lose their seats in 2008, and with good reason - the Republicans are targeting them and are intent on winning the 15 seats they need to regain control of the House.So each Democrat has to ask himself: how bad do I want my seat? And what am I willing to give up to keep it?De-funding the war would - there's no escaping it - put some of those 61 at risk. If you're thinking long term and you want a congress that might actually do responsible things about healthcare and global warming and even Iraq in the future, then now just isn't the time for the Democrats to force this issue.
It's not pretty; it's not lofty; it's not inspiring -- especially if you are a member of a military family who wants your loved ones home.
It just is what it is. And if this all comes as a shock to you, well frankly, you should be paying closer attention to how our system works.
Can you vote them out of office? Sure -- I'm pretty certain that the Greens or the Libertarians would love to have your vote. And you'd have the satisfaction of having voted with conscience.
But at the end of the day, would we be any closer to having ended the occupation? No.
Of course you might be thinking, "But in the future, these guys would think twice about doing this crap again."
But sadly, my friend, the future is now.
Posted by Ara | Link
| Comments
(6)
| digg this
| del.icio.us 
Categories: Democrats
, War in Iraq
Comments
You're a true, loyal Democrat, my friend.
Unfortunately, there's a straw man holding up your defense: it was never about "de-funding."
It was about making Bush capitulate on timelines, i.e., some Congressional oversight/regluation of the war leading to a wholesale change in strategy - away from US occupation.
The policy difference, had they sent back an appropriation with timelines would have been negligable, at least in the near term.
94% of 11,000 Kossacks agree mostly or "100%" with Keith Olbermann. For Democrats, the politics of this could hardly be worse.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 24, 2007 09:40 AM
I should point out that Democrats paid no price at all for the timelines provision in the first appropriation - in fact, they gained a bit even in red states if I remeber the poll data correctly. They had nothing to lose by sending them back to Bush and everything to lose by failing to.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 24, 2007 09:45 AM
Dude, I keep telling everyone: I'm a yellow- (not a blue-dog) Democrat.
Seriously, if there is a straw man, it is the idea that this whole fight is about ending the occupation.
Fact is, that's already been settled: Republicans want indefinite occupation and the Democrats want a finite date for ending it.
But getting there is a real chess game.
No, to me, the real battle is about the netroots and whether they believe they are getting any respect from their elected majority -- and what they plan to do about it if they don't think they are.
[Democrats] had nothing to lose by sending them back to Bush and everything to lose by failing to.
Again, there are 231 Democrats in the House and 231 individual calculations about what is at stake. It's different in the Senate because not everyone is up for re-election in 08.
I'm just saying.
P.S. It'll be interesting to see what Obama and Clinton do.
Posted by: Ara Rubyan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 24, 2007 10:28 AM
Obama and Hillary are in hiding as far as I can tell. Their silence is deafening.
Obama should have been way out in front on this. He really has been a disappointment.
Hillary isn't done focus grouping the thing.
I called my Rep. They got the language of the bill at 9am for a vote this afternoon - 400 pages. Got no committment on how she would vote.
Posted by: Mark Adams![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 24, 2007 10:51 AM
BTW, the only way this was "smart" politics is if it doesn't pass -- and somehow the leadership can shrug their shoulders and tell the Bushies they tried to give him what he wanted in good faith, but the peoples' representatives wouldn't go for it.
This was dumb politics. I can't imagine a scenerio where it is "smart" to reinforce the GOP meme that Democrats are weak.
There's momentum in politics -- just like in hoops. The Dems have to regroup and rebuild a head of steam just to get back where they were last week. They were on a roll and threw it away.
You talk about the individual votes by individual CongressCritters. Everybody gets that Ara. What happened here was not an individual decision but a cave-in by the leadership.
The people who speak for the entire caucus just got played. Pelosi said she probably won't vote for it. She'll vote her conscious but lacked the stones to lead. That sound's like a hollow commitment to her principles to me.
Posted by: Mark Adams![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 24, 2007 10:59 AM
"I'm a yellow- (not a blue-dog) Democrat."
“Blue-dog” Democrat is looking more and more like an oxymoron. Considering that their electorates are split on the matter and their party’s leadership needed their support, they seem to be loyal only to their own mistaken beliefs about their political self-interest.
I can’t wait to see how many loyal Democrats they have to face in their next primaries.
Posted by: shep![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.rubyan.com/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 24, 2007 12:21 PM