WHY is everyone saying "Dems caved" on the funding bill?

[johnaries]

The majority of Dems voted against it - but the House and Senate are split so closely it only took a few Dems to vote with the Repukes to pass it.

The Dem Leadership spoke out against it. Don't criticize the Dem Leadership or ALL Dems because of a few.

What do you want? Do you want our own Dem "Hammer" to force everyone to vote the Party line? Isn't that one of the things we always criticized the Repukes for?

I know you're all frustrated. Can you imagine how frustrated our representatives are who actually speak out on our behalf and vote as we elected them to vote.... and it's still not enough? Can you imagine how frustrated they are when they do what we ask and then we blame them because they were unsuccessful?

The Democrats in office who voted the way we asked don't need our scorn - they need our support.

STOP SAYING that "Dems caved". START saying that "Most Dems tried" but can't be successful until WE get the rest of Congress on board. We squeaked out a narrow victory in 2006. Obviously, it wasn't enough. We need a veto-proof majority.

Until then, STOP BLAMING our Representatives who are trying their best. Blame the ones who aren't.

I'm not even a registered Democrat. I'm a registered Independent. And here I am defending the Democrats in office against false accusations from their own party. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

[Solly Mack]

1. I sure do want a cookie

for calling it

[Solly Mack]

3. kick

[mmonk]

2. I want them to stop giving this administration what they want.

We voted them into a majority position to offer resistence or a different direction and to stop the abuses of power. Instead we're funding escalation. That's sort of the exact opposite of why we voted them in. And quit telling me they are doing all they can. If they were doing that, we wouldn't have any voting with the republicans. We're the party of compromise, even when we're in charge.

[BoneDaddy]

4. great point

So who are the Dems who did cave?

[mudesi]

5. A few? Here are the numbers

Senate vote was 80-14;
House vote was 280-142

[Bluebear]

6. 'You should be ashamed of yourselves!'

Uh, OK.

PS, I don't want our reps "trying their best". You say that about a soccer league for 6 year olds.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Hear, hear!!!

I'm not even a registered Democrat. I'm a registered Independent.

And I am a BIG defender of the Greens here at DU, but I refuse to buy into the current hysteria.

This has been explained time and again to those frothing at the mouth, and I won't attempt it again. But it sure makes me wonder about the Dems' ability to think independently.

[Edweird]

8. It took active DEM participation to CREATE this piece of crap.

NO BILL = NO FUNDING. NO FUNDING = NO WAR.
"doing the right thing" in this case simply required NO ACTION whatsoever. And they couldn't even do that.

"REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, you know, there’s a fundamental misperception about the path the Democrats should be taking. We shouldn’t be offering any legislation at all. We should just simply tell the President we’re not going to fund the war. And this idea about funding the war to help the troops is absurd. You want to help the troops, bring them home.

I offered a plan, HR 1234, that would provide for a plan that would bring the troops home, close the bases, end the occupation and reach out to the international community for an international peacekeeping and security force that would move in as our troops leave. But we can’t do that until we end the occupation. We can’t end the occupation until we stop funding the war. We simply do not have to have a bill, Amy. It’s just as simple as that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about those Democrats who argue that they could not get a majority vote or at least one that would survive a presidential veto to stop the funding, so that they’ve got to then have a concession of some sort?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I want to make sure I’m being clear about this. I’m saying that it’s not necessary to have a bill, that the process depends on legislation to keep the war going. But there’s money in the pipeline right now to bring the troops home. We simply should tell the President we’re not going to fund the war, period. We don’t need legislation to do that.
"

That is why I, for one, am extremely pissed. They have dropped the ball time and time again. And when it really counted, they showed their true colors, a yellow streak.

[Bluebear]

9. 'We shouldn’t be offering any legislation at all.'

You are so right, Rep. Kucinich.

[On the Road]

10. The Dem Leadership Had the Option of Reintroducing the Same Bill

or one that was virtually identical. Since they control the committees, it's up to the Dems what gets to the floor to get voted on. The question then becomes what would happen when Bush vetoed the second bill.

Congress could simple sit tight and wait for the money to run out. But eventually the money will run out. At that point, will the public blame Bush or blame the Dems?

This is what I think DUers are not taking into account. There is a very real chance that this would come back to bite them and be a very major political defeat, much worse than what happened last week. It would also affect everything else the Dems are trying to do in Congress.

Before any bills are introduced, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes activity. Pelosi and Reid know who's going to vote for what and how long they would stay with it. I believe Pelosi desperately wants to end the war, but didn't think it could be done this way.

I don't blame them quite as much for voting the money as a lot of folks here. I DO blame them for overpromising, talking trash, and not following through on those promises. You have to count the cost before you start something like this.

I also blame them for portraying it as a reasonable compromise rather than as a defeat. We are not ididots. The Dems were expected to stop the war even though they do not a clear majority of votes on this particular issue. But they shouldn't try to deny that.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Well said!

[Cronopio]

12. Wait out the oil companies to pressure them to pay for it. It's their occupation, not ours.

"At that point, will the public blame Bush or blame the Dems?"

At what point do you stop worrying about what "the public" thinks about what is being done, and start worrying about what needs to be done? As history has proven time after time, "the public" gets behind whoever prevails in political standoffs.

Remember when Clinton had finally had enough of Repug strong-arming tactics back in '95, and chose to wait out the opposition rather than pass spending bills that he didn't want? Much of the U.S. government was shut down for several weeks, Clinton got lambasted in the media, but then something happened that no one in the Beltway could puzzle out. His approval ratings shot up to levels he hadn't seen since just after he'd been elected and stayed there. Just a month before, the common "wisdom" among the pundits was that Clinton was on the way to being a one-termer. I'm sure DLC insiders are still calling it a fluke, but anyone who changed their minds about Clinton and voted for him in '96 knows better.

The Dems didn't overpromise anything last year. They knew their mandate and fed it verbatim back to us. This week, they failed to live up to the most basic terms of their mandate. And there is no "reasonable compromise" about it - they gave Bush exactly what he wanted with political cover and no strings attached. That's not a compromise, it's a sellout.

Kucinich, yet again, is exactly right. The only chance of stopping the Iraq occupation is stopping the funding for it. If that happens, funding will come out of the Pentagon's "black budget". If that's not enough, the oil companies might have to kick in a few bucks. But there *will* be funding for it, and whoever is made to fund it will own it and will have to answer for it. The only thing the Dems had to do this week was to wash their hands of it. Now they own it too, from here on out.

[On the Road]

13. I Think a Different Tack Might bear More Fruit

Maybe tying spending to tax increases. Maybe tying withdrawal to running the domestic government, which does not leave one as vulnerable to the charge of betraying the troops. They have to get more creative.

[Toots]

14. The Democrats wrote the damn bill

:shrug: