Its political reality.

[Skip Intro]

I know I'm in the minority here for even acknowledging such, but this is the way it looks to me.

Dems do not have the votes to override the veto. Not now, and not in a protracted showdown with bushco.


Had Dems insisted on the timetable, the bushco spin machine would have kicked into high gear. "Democrats want to help the terrorists kill our troops." "Our troops are dying because the Dems won't give them the funding they need to protect themselves." The meme would have been everywhere.

These are the same people that made Max Cleland into Osama in 2002, and they sold it. Don't think for a minute they didn't have their knives sharpened for this vote. They would have sold it.

Public perception = public support = votes = who gets to be in power. The anti-troop label stuck to Dems, repukes take everything in 08.

Do I wish it weren't that way, of course. Do I wish our reps would vote their conscience and not consider the political fallout, of course. Do I wish there was something Dems could do to bring an end to bush's marathon bloodbath, of course.

But right here, right now, with our slim majorities limiting our potential effectiveness, with the prospect of a battle that we would ultimately loose, at least in the court of public perception, and with the potential loss in 08 looming as a result, thereby rendering our side all but powerless, I can understand the reluctant giving in at this point.

I don't like it, but I can understand it.

Its politics. Sad but true.

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. And the political reality is that the Democrats will be BURIED for this.

By the media, the opposition, and most importantly, the electorate.

The political reality is that this is a very stupid political move.

[AndyA]

2. The Democrats have just bought themselves a war.

That will be the public perception, now. What was once clearly a Bush/GOP war, has now become a Bush/GOP/Democratic war. And the media even now is preparing the message to be given out.

The Democrats f*cked up, big time.

[endarkenment]

18. Yes but they voted against the war before they voted for it.

How fucking lame our party is. What a damn shame.

[panader0]

3. So what if Dems can't override the veto?

Let bush keep vetoing the funds. We fund the troops, he vetoes the money. Then who looks bad?

[babylonsister]

8. That's how I wanted it to go down, too. Let * be the bad guy for

vetoing it.

[mrcheerful]

The Dem's do thats who. Republican spin doctors would have spun it to

death and the idiots out there who listen to those spin doctors would eat it up. Remember Reagan, there they go again?

[Jersey Devil]

14. Sure, Bush and his 28% approval rating would be devastating

Nobody believes a damned thing Bush says anymore and the Dems are worried that he might scold them? Comeon!

[Skip Intro]

12. I guess that is the question - who would win that battle. My gut says bushco.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. I think it would eventually have gotten to the point where the public would say, damn, the troops are dying, give him the money already. I think that battle would have gone badly for us in the long run.

Had we the votes to override the veto, that would be different.

Maybe I'm wrong?

What happened to deauthorizing the war in the Senate?

[kenny blankenship]

21. People don't like it when the President vetoes something they want --again and again and again

the more he vetoes the more it isolates him and makes him look like an out of touch, irrational, tyrannical asshole. In Bush's case the people already mostly convinced of that.
You want to clear the decks for an impeachment of the President, or kick his door in and force him to sign legislation people want but his constituents abhor? You *must* isolate him in this way. Also it helps to be plowing up scandals and filing charges against his close advisors and cabinet officers.

You back down instead and you get nothing for it--nothing plus the contempt of the American people.

[mrcheerful]

4. I been trying to point out the same facts but it seems a lot of people expected that the

Dem's should have fought it out or be seen as weak. It was a no win situation, damn if the did damned if they didn't.

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. In a "no win" situation, you should go down fighting. nt

[TwilightGardener]

9. Yep--they may not win, but fuck, don't just fold after the first veto!

[mrcheerful]

13. Remember Reagan and there they go again? Thats the type of thinking that the american public

has. Theree they go again, I had a plan but the Dems stopped it. The Dems are just trying to get back at us for impeaching Bill Clinton so they are taking it out on the troops.

[TwilightGardener]

20. I know they will be painted badly by the media, but...damn! One go-round and that's it?

[H2O Man]

5. They don't have to.

We are not stupid. We know that they don't have the votes to override a veto. We also know that the Constitution gives congress control of the purse strings. It doesn't say they only have that control when they can override a veto. That's reality. But the congress is willingly giving Bush the control he should not have. And that pisses us off. That's reality, too.

[leftupnorth]

7. The poor little fellers. If they can't defend themsleves against those lame

accusations, they deserve what they get.

[babylonsister]

10. I disagree; they're supposed to represent us, and the majority of 'us'

don't want this war. What part of that don't they understand?

[onenote]

17. which "us" ? which "majority"?

Political reality: an overwelming majority of Democrats and a substantial majoriy of the public as a whole oppose the war and supported the enactment of a funding bill with a timetable.

Political reality: the numbers are different when the question is to not fund the war at all. While Democrats still support that result, a majority of the electorate is not in favor at this point in time.

Political reality: even among Democratic members of Congress, there is a wide range. There are many members from districts/states that lean as, if not more, red than blue. The Democratic members from these areas may well be representing the "majority" of their constituents when they vote for continued funding rather than allow funding to end.

In terms of the preferred result, I would like to see funds cut off and troops withdrawn immediately. But that isn't going to happen. As a fallback, I was willing to go along with a timetable that provided continued funding but began the draw down of troop levels with a deadline early next year. That having failed, because of repub votes, not Democratic votes, the political reality is that a funding bill is going to pass. The goal from here on out will be to make it clear that this course of action was forced by the repubs. All of the carping blaming Democrats doesn't really help send that message.

[babylonsister]

19. I would have preferred the Dems to re-submit the previous bill and let

* veto it again. Why would that have been so difficult? We all know we're not leaving the soldiers over there with no money; if we had to use the existing money to get them home, oh well.
So now the media, pundits, etc., can have the lovely dialogue of how much the Dems caved, how much of a mess the party is in, how * prevailed, etc. I wasn't expecting that and don't like it or agree.
My opinion, and apparently I'm not alone.

[Clovis Sangrail]

11. that's just it though...

the Dems didn't NEED the votes to override the veto.
They just needed to stick to their guns.

They've already been blamed of not supporting the troops and denying them funds.
That wasn't going to change no matter what they did.

Now, on top of this, they get the added bonus of being seen as spineless by a large portion of the public and weak by their opponents.
Not to mention the American and Iraqi lives lost while they wait for "a better time" to make a stand.

Overall I think the Dems choose a path with far higher exposure.

[endarkenment]

15. voting for this war bill is a war crime.

The only ethical vote is no.

The only power congress had was to deny the funding for the war.

[LSparkle]

16. The biggest problem is the SENATE -- and less than half of it was up in '06

We won OVERWHELMINGLY in the Senate, but only about a third of the seats were up. THAT's the problem. It's going to take at least one more election for the SENATE TO START REFLECTING THE TRUE FEELINGS OF THIS COUNTRY.

[Individualist]

22. The indefensible can't be defended

[mmonk]

23. THEY DON'T HAVE TO. All they have to do is deauthorize

and defund this war and begin withdrawal. They don't want to. It doesn't matter if the public is tired of this war. It doesn't matter if the democratic voters want them to end this. They don't want to end it now. Plain facts in plain english. Anything else they may say about wanting to end this is POLITICS.

[Brigid]

24. Some are suggesting . . .

that this may be a blessing in disguise. It means that when the 2008 elections roll around, we'll still be in Iraq and (hopefully) the Repugs will get blamed for it. We'll see.

[babylonsister]

25. That's the other problem; we let kids and Iraqis die so we 'win'? I don't

want to win that bad.