NEWS: Democrats: Classic Fuck Ups

POLITICS: Democrats: Classic Fuck Ups

After the 9/11 attacks, George Bush had political capital to spend. With his support skyrocketing, he chose to make every idiotic choice he possibly could, alienating America across the globe and becoming the worst President in US history. Politicians do not get many opportunities like the one George Bush was given. But he blew the support in such a horrific fashion that in November of 2006, the Republicans suffered one of the worst defeats in Congressional history, losing both chambers of Congress. The American public wanted the Democrats to do one thing: Get the US out of Iraq. And, not surprisingly, the Democrats took that political mandate and totally fucked it up.

George Bush’s approval numbers are nearing Nixon territory. At this point, he could probably rape a blind 13-year-old midget on camera in the Oval Office and his numbers would not get much worse than they already are. Now, ad that to the fact that Americans support some sort of withdrawal from Iraq by a large margin and it sounds like a great combination if you are the opposing party, right? Not if that opposing party is The Party of Being Afraid. Like the pussies they are known to be, the Democrats caved on the recent spending bill and gave Bush a blank check.

The Republicans called the Democrats’ bluff and they scampered away like the frightened kittens they are. A tremendous opportunity lost. I believe the Democrats made a political calculation – one they will come to greatly regret. New polls out this week suggest the public is upset that the Democrats caved on the Iraq spending bill. Way back in April, the Democratic led Congress had a 54% approval rating, but that has now plummeted to 35%. In April, the Democrats held a 24% approval rating advantage over Bush. That advantage has now dropped to 3%. That is what happens when you play politics instead of doing what you were clearly elected to do.

The Democrats stupidly thought keeping Iraq alive and in the President’s court, would benefit them as people became increasingly upset over the summer. But that plan quickly backfired. The Democratic base, many of who were energized in their opposition against the war, has bailed – hence the rapid drop in poll numbers. Staffers on The Hill are said to be completely shocked at the anger spewing forth from the base. This just goes to show how distanced from reality they are. Did they not see the polls? Did they think they were given control of Congress to talk the talk and not walk the walk?

During the long standoff over the funding, Republican lawmakers kept throwing the month of September around. “We’ll wait until September to see if the surge is working,” they kept saying. The Democrats believed they could use the entire summer to hammer away at Bush on the war and they chose to wait until September. They were totally outflanked by Republican leaders. Now Republicans are beginning to float bills around, different ways to withdraw or reduce troops in September – in other words, the Republicans in Congress will take the credit for any withdrawal that takes place. After all, it will be done on their timetable. And worst of all, by signing onto the funding bill, the Democrats took part ownership of a war that was never theirs.

And make no mistake about it, the Democrats could have stopped this war – by not funding it. Bush could not veto an end to funding. He would not get a bill to veto, just a letter saying, “No more money after March. Sorry, bro.” All Congress had to do was grow a backbone and tell the President that funding for the war would end in March. If a year is not enough time to safely withdraw our troops, then we will never be able to remove them.

Will this translate in the next election? Probably not. The Republican field is one of the most pathetic in generations. They are a group of hardcore right wing/religious fanatics who are completely out of touch with the average American. Republicans will suffer greatly until they purge their party of lunatics.

But the Democrats had a moment in time they can never get back. A moment they wasted. They will now be seen as the “other” party. The party you go to if you don’t want to vote for the other guys, not as a party of action, not as the party a backbone, not as a party you can believe in to stand up for doing what is right.

Reid and Pelosi took it up the ass one this one, and they will deservedly suffer the consequences.

FearTheReaper hates Democrats but he hates Republicans more. He supported them hoping they would put a stop to the war. Now he thinks they can fuck off.

Is there anyone who honestly thinks that after everything you did, pulling out of Iraq is as simple as just putting everybody on a plane home?

There's a Dutch saying, if you burn your ass, you sit on the blisters. Create a titanic mess in Iraq, spend the next ten years fixing it.

The argument here seems to posit a kind of political vacuum - where every choice results in a specific outcome. And that just ain't so, regardless of public opinion. People hate the war, and "send" Democrats to end it. But I tell you, if the Democrats did NOT pass an appropriation bill - you'd see Dick Cheney in Iraq talking about rationing bullets, not having adequate hospital services, and bemoaning the lack of body armor. Regardless of what is *true,* that image would resonate - and the same people who are now up in arms about Democrats *not* ending the war would be pissed about *how* the Democrats ended the war (playing politics with soldiers lives, using the budget in a political way instead of real debate - I mean, these sounds bites write themselves).

The September deadline is a "fair" (in the "reasonable," not in the "truly just," sense of the word), if stupid, compromise on the surge. The assumption that Republicans have somehow outflanked Democrats on the withdrawal bill seems premature - there are plenty of Republicans who still like this war, on its own merits or as some linchpinsof the "war on terror." With the majority, and a stronger presidential candidate field, Democrats have ample opportunity to not only take back the Iraq issue, but also not look like pansies when it comes to international conflict (an image that continues, also dumbly, to haunt them).

No. Of course not. There are no misguided, mistaken, or unthinkingly partisan people in this country at all.

That's why we're the greatest country in the world. After Kazakhstan, anyway.

i'm terribly disappointed (but not at all surprised) that the democrats didn't use congress' arguably most badass power--cutting off the funding like an enraged father cancels his wayward teenage daughter's credit card.

i can see how they didn't want to get stuck with the "u hate r troops" label, but i think that wouldn't have lasted long once the troops started coming back home. doing exactly what you say you are going to do seems one of the most elusive attributes to find in a candidate these days.

"Pulling out" does not necessarily mean evacuating Iraq. It could involve a U.N. Peacekeeping Force, preferably from Arab nations. Of course, we'd still have to pay for it. And open the "reconstruction" efforts to non-US-based companies.

The "support our troops" crap only really works on the right-wingers anyways. Most people in left field are smart enough to know that line is a bullshit catch phrase. The Democrats have a political fear of people that wouldn't vote for them anyways.

The troops wouldn't have started coming back home, though.

The President can keep them deployed without funding - and he certainly would have. While the pointless and politically-motivated endangering of our soldiers would at that point have been solidly a Presidential crime (as it has been from the beginning), it would nevertheless be at least partially a Congressional responsibility.

This moral issue is more important to me, personally - as I think it is to many Democrats in Congress - but the political issue isn't to be disregarded, either. The White House would just create another American Dolchstoßlegende o go with Vietnam, and which would divide this country even more deeply than it already is.

well yes, but the democrats' success lies in appealing to the middle, not just the left. and after what the american people have allowed shoved up their asses during this administration, i wouldn't bank on the average person not buying the "support our troops" junk.

You know I think it was you FTR telling me I was crazy when I said that Bush had called the Dems bluff, and you went on and on about how it was not the case. There is no way the DOOMocrats will end this war or change anything at all in washington any time soon because now that they have the power they are going right back to business as usual, they don't care about the troops, they care only about the political power they can get from using the troops and the Iraq war as a tool, a sounbyte to get votes.

Oh an done more thing........

Told you so.

Oh, bloody hell.

I know the comfort of limited choices - that's I why I liked the Alien best in the AvP games, dammit - but isn't it about time America found a third political option?

And I also said the Dems would eventually cave, but you as usual only read what you wanted to. Also, if you use the term DOOMocrats, then no one should ever respond to you.

That's been true, but I think the post-9/11 nationalism is beginning to wear off with most Americans. But you're right, I don't think I'd bank on it at this point either.

We have them, but they have no political capital what-so-ever. I don't think they'll ever have any until our government implodes politically (at least, I hope it's an implosion).

Really, a UN peace force? I vaguely recall the UN having some pretty strong opinions about your little rampage at the start, and they were mocked and ignored.

But now that you want out it's time for the UN to step in?


That really would be the perfect ending for this gigantic fuck up. Unfortunately the Dutch (amongst others) are already stuck cleaning up your mess in Afghanistan, I seriously hope America doesn't get away with stiffing someone else with Iraq as well.

I responded to him, but it was deleted for being abusive.

Probably just as well, anyway, since his argument consists of nothing more than a string of unsupported accusations of cynical opportunism, and has no real significance at all - much less validity.

You replied to the wrong post.

Moreover, your attitude is appallingly counterproductive and punitive. I can't quite see how you might think that's "better," in any possible sense of the word, to leave Iraq in American rather than in international hands.

It's also a little inflammatory to be told that Afghanistan and Iraq are "our" messes. Many of us distinguish ourselves from the White House, you know.

Pulling out of Iraq is apparently a lot more difficult than pulling out of a 13 year old blind midget.
I don't know which is more unlikely- the blind midget scandal or the idea that Saddam had WMDs.
PS, no I don't have a point here.

Why are you attacking me? I was in the streets on February 15, 2003. I helped shut down San Francisco on March 20, 2003. I voted for Nader in 2000 and Cobb in 2004. I helped chase Halliburton out of Houston.

And I wouldn't call it "stiffing someone else." Iraq is a mess. US troops are just a further provocation. At this point, it is in everybody's best interest--including, first and foremost, Iraqi civilians'--for a third party to intervene and calm things down.

Of course, that also means opening up the "reconstruction" efforts to non-US companies, which is one reason BushCo hesitates to do it. They want the spoils for their cronies.

This shit is a lot more complicated than "should we stay or should we go?"

Irresistible:

But if we go...there will be trouble!

And if we stay it will be double.

The question you have to ask yourself is "would Bush keep the troops over there with no funding?"

I think the Democrats needed to cut funding and then push back with some media manipulation of their own. Yes, Bush and Cheney would be playing dirty tricks, blaming the Dems for the disaster of the troops not having funding. All the Dems would have to do is start a public outcry about how the President is being an unreasonable monster not withdrawing the troops as requested.

What they're afraid of Rove?

I don't know if a vote to cut off funding would have passed in the Senate, though. Even though in rhetoric most Republicans have turned away from the White House like rats abandoning a sinking ship, when push comes to shove (like this week's blocked No Confidence vote on Gonzalez) the Bush admin has been able to exert its influence in keeping the party in line. After all, this senate couldn't even muster the votes for a non-binding resolution on the war - I tend to think a measure that would ACTUALLY move towards ending the war wouldn't get much further.

As my grandmother always says, "some people wouldnt be happy tasting in a pie factory." Who ever wrote this really should take a look at how lucky we are to be out of the era of complete Republican domination. That being said it's not that big of a margin that Democrats have control. The Democrats dont really have enough power to make such across the board changes that are advocated in this commentary. The Democrats can simply stop the Republicans from doing some things they couldnt have stopped before. They dont have enough control to turn the country completly around. Find something to complain about that doesnt show your ignorance of how the government works.

The Dems could have decided to vote against further funding but this would not have ended the war. The troops need funding and to leave them without it would be fucked up no matter what you think.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is where the Bush Administation wants us to be.