:nopity: :eyes: :grr:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/may/24/dem_leadershipDem Leadership: If We'd Confronted Bush On Iraq, White House Would Have Criticized Us
By Greg Sargent | bio
With the House set to vote on the no-timelines Iraq War funding bill later today, The New York Times provides a glimpse into the thinking among top Dems that led to the current proposal:
...in recounting the leadership’s thinking, senior Democrats and other officials said that by early this week they had concluded there was no alternative but to give ground to President Bush despite their view that he had mishandled the war and needed to be put under tighter Congressional rein.
Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.
Oooooooooooooo, scary! If we didn't give Bush his way, the White House would have criticized us!
Seriously, the Times account dovetails with what we've heard from multiple Dem staffers. And it has to be said that this is, like, soooooooooo June 2006. Recall that last spring many Dems were terrified of taking on the GOP and the White House over Iraq because they worried that the Republicans would tell the electorate an irresistable story: Dems are weak, and Republicans are strong. When Dems finally realized that Republicans would tell this story no matter what they did, they started telling the story their way: The war in Iraq is a disaster; it has made us weaker; Dems want to end it, and Republicans don't. The rest is history. Dems won the argument.
Now Dems appear to have let their own worries about the potential story that Republicans will tell -- Dems are on vacation while the troops are wanting! -- largely shape their course of action here. Sure, you want to game out what the opposition will do. But Dems, Republicans are going to keep telling the story this way no matter what you do. Indeed, the
President just reminded everyone at today's presser that some Dems didn't want to support the troops -- even though the Dem leadership has already agreed to give him his no-timelines funding. Why not start by deciding what the right policy is, and then tell your story as forcefully as you can? Dems can win arguments, as 2006 showed.
But look, what's done is done. And now that we're finished popping off, it needs to be said that generally this new Dem Congressional leadership has repeatedly defied expectations with its willingness to take on the White House. Just not this time.
Meanwhile, here are a couple things to watch for related to the upcoming House and Senate votes on the supplemental. The key outstanding questions: How effective will pressure from antiwar groups on Dem legislators prove in driving down the number of House Dems who will vote for the proposal? This is key, because the lower the Dem support for it, the more the GOP and the White House will own this policy. Second key question: Which way will Hillary and Barack Obama go?
We'll be bringing you more coverage of this throughout the day. Stay with us.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
