The American People voted for Republicans in to keep the war going.

[Ravy]

In the upcoming weeks, we will hear countless pundits, on TV, radio, and yes, message boards like DU say that the voters put Democrats in charge to end the war.

Well, the voters didn't send enough to do the job.

It is easy to assign motives for other voters's actions, and to assign your belief on why YOU voted for someone to all Democrats. Even Repuplicans will be quick to point out WHY voters sent Democrats to Congress, when such statements serves *their* political agenda.

Some Democrats ran to clean up congress. Some voters undoubtably voted Democratic because of the Republican hypocracy with Mark Foley and the page scandal. Some voted because they thought the Republicans would screw up Social Security or screw with Medicare. There are lots of reasons that people vote for different people and parties. It wasn't all the war... not every vote, in every race.

And yes, *many* Democrats ran on opposition to the war, and many times they were elected. The voters didn't put enough of them in. Too bad, or we would have at least a timetable for withdrawal by now.

But the fact is, that the voters gave us just enough Democrats to accomplish some things, like hearings, minimum wage, ethics legislation, etc.

They simply didn't give us enough to end the war.

I know some of you will respond that we have a majority in both houses, and we could end the war by cutting off the funding.

We do not have a majority who will cut off the funding. I suspect that if every Democrat that ran last time said that the first thing they would do if elected is cut off funding for the war, we would have lost many, many seats.

Let's further shift our focus to the Republicans. I can't think of a single Republican that I would favor against the Democrat that ran against them, regardless of any vote any Democrat made that I disagree with. You can bet that the Republican they beat would have a worse record than they do.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Well said

There are still enough war supporters, most of them Republicans, to obstruct any meaningful shift in policy.

[WillyT]

4. It's The Democratic War Supporters That I Have A Problem With

and always will.

[rockymountaindem]

5. Me too

The presence of Republican Bush sycophants doesn't excuse the behavior of pro-war Democrats.

[Ravy]

6. Moreso than Republican ones?

I would bet that the Democratic war supporters feel they are representing the will of their constituents.

This is a diverse country. There have to be a few districts that support the war, even though the public in general is greatly against it. Some of these districts may well be Democratic. I will take the Democrats there for their votes on the *other* issues, and for the numbers to have the leadership positions in the committees.

Can you say that for all the Republicans that are war supporters? Do you think they are *all* representing the will of their constituents?

[melody]

12. The problem is the GOP. The Democrats are just cowards in their districts

If they were true nutjobs, they would be GOP.

The Republicans are, will be and always has been (well, since Reagan) the primary danger
to our country.

[sniffa]

2. we deserve what we get

hopefuLLy, peopLe wiLL reaLize what their vote means.

[snot]

3. A lot of us also believe some Dem wins were stolen. nt

[bluestateguy]

7. Good arguments

If Democrats like Heath Shuler, Brad Ellsworth or Nick Lampson voted to cut off funding the war, given the red districts that they represent, they would not be back in Congress in 2009.

Congress isn't yet ready to cut off the funding because the American people have not indicated that they will support that move. A majority believes the war was wrong, but that's not the same poll question as asking people to cut off the funding. Public opinion just isn't there yet.

[WillyT]

9. And Curiously, Neither Is Democratic Leadership On Iraq

To lead implies that people are willing to follow you.

People follow leaders because those leaders have presented information to them as to what is best for their community, their state, and their country.

I find it hard to believe that ANY Democrat could be elected to a district that thinks the Iraq War is good for ANY reason.

So I'm left with believing that the Democrats you mention are either deficient in their leadership skills, or are representing a district full of idiots.

And since I'm not quite totally convinced of that either yet, I'm left to wonder what really is going on.

:shrug:

[Tom Joad]

8. Dem leaders choose candidates who did not make Iraq a big issue

if you looked at many of their websites, many of them, while running, you could hardly find a statement on Iraq. Or if they did, they said something like "troops must be well-equipped" and support of veteran's funding... but often times very little about "troops must be returned home quickly"
there were exceptions, but sometimes with challengers who did not get official backing in the primary.

Anyway, if the Dem leadership wanted to end this war it could. It doesn't need to withstand any veto, all it needs to do is refuse more funding. That doesn't even take a majority.

[Ravy]

10. So you agree with the premise...

that the voters, by and large, did NOT put the Democrats in power to end the war. Correct?

At least, in enough cases to actually get it done.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Iraq is, and has been, in the hands of Republican Senators.

Until people realize that, and put the pressure on them, nothing will change Chimpy's course.

[pansypoo53219]

13. no

they voted for republikkkans to save them from gay marriage.

has georgie banned that yet?