Credit Where It's Due [UPDATED]
President Bush Emerges Victorious from First Scrape with Democrat Congress
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
President Bush is set this week to secure a major victory when the Democratic controlled Congress completes work on the Iraq War Supplemental.
Democratic leaders in the House are now admitting that they will have to send the president a supplemental appropriations bill that will fully fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the fiscal year without any of the mandatory conditions they once insisted upon.
From the story:
After weeks of refusing to back down to President Bush on setting a timetable on Iraq, House Democratic leaders face having to explain to their party's rank and file why they've now relented.Party officials said Monday the next war spending bill most likely will fund military operations and not demand a timeline to bring troops home, although it will contain other restrictions on Bush's Iraq policies.
On May 1, Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have paid for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September as Bush requested, but demanded that troops start coming home this fall.
Democrats say they hope to send Bush a new bill by the end of the week he will sign, and troops in combat will get the resources they need without disruption.
Make no mistake, this is a complete and total sellout of the base by the Democrats. It’s such a reversal of positions on their part that, with respect to the war in Iraq, it’s almost as if the Republicans are still in charge. Indeed, to pass this funding bill, it is likely that Democrats will have to rely on the support of Republicans since the divisions in their own caucus are so great. You might call this Democratic Congress a faux-Republican one when it comes to funding the war.
Read on…
[UPDATE below the fold]
President Bush and the Republican Leadership deserve full credit for this defeat of the Democrats’ signature policy initiative. The president’s May 1st veto of the Democrats’ original supplemental, the leadership’s refusal to back down to Democrat and media pressure on the override vote, and the Administration’s steadfast refusal to accept restrictions or timelines have won the day. Cracks in the Democrats’ armor have been exposed and their members are taking notice.
National Journal (sub. req.), in its Congress Daily feature, has the details on rumblings in the Democratic caucus about Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership thus far.
”There simply is no direction,” said the spokesman for one mid-level Democratic member closely tied to leadership. "Press is an afterthought on our side, and it shows.” [...]"You look at the Republican apparatus and it is like they're playing chess and we're playing checkers," the first-term lawmaker said. [...]
"It is going to take time to figure out, but at the end of the day there has to be stronger leadership and some more-aggressive message defense," said one former senior House Democratic communications professional who now heads press operations for a prominent party-affiliated group. "It is a problem for every Democrat in Congress if they don't realize the Republicans are going to turn Pelosi into radioactive material before the 2008 election and try and use that to win the House back."
Democrats are trying to assuage their base’s angst by attaching a minimum wage increase to the supplemental, but that’s small potatoes. The far-left wing that makes up the Democrat base wants the Democrats to end the war above all else. That is the standard on which this Congress will be judged and they have just failed this round miserably.
The long knives are out for Speaker Pelosi already, and it took only about 100 days and a handful of Motions to Recommit. The Speaker had better get used to seeing our friends pictured on the left circling over head and escorting her jumbo jet to and from her district. This speakership, historic for the fact that it is the first to be held by a female Member, may soon become historic for another, less celebratory fact. Speaker Pelosi seems on the verge of becoming the first Speaker of the House to serve less than one full year in office.
UPDATE: ABC News is now reporting:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed Tuesday a final Iraq spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals, but promised that Democrats would try to end the war using next year's spending bills. [...]The House planned to vote Thursday on the bill.
While the precise details remained in flux, officials said the legislation would likely threaten billions of dollars in reconstruction aid if the Iraqi government failed to make progress on political and security goals.
But Democrats planned to drop provisions from an earlier bill-vetoed by the president-that would have demanded troops start coming home this fall.
Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately-or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-founder of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus, said she will vote against the new measure and predicted that many of colleagues will join her.
"Every time we negotiate, it (the bill) becomes weaker," said Woolsey, D-Calif. "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it."
(Emphasis added) That grinding sound you hear is many a sharpening tool whirring away in the offices of liberal Democrat members.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | For President Of The World Bank — Comments (3) »
Credit Where It's Due [UPDATED] 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Oh, no that would be YOUR screw job.
The war will start to end January 21, 2009 and no sooner than that.
Only the fringiest Democrats don't understand that.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
You're not seriously suggesting that there are equal amounts of crazies in both parties are you? Because if you are you are proving yourself to be somewhat less than rational.
Are there crazies on both sides of the ideological divide? Of course. The difference is that the Democratic Party is aninmated and supported by its crazies, The Republicans generally disavow theirs.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
If, as they have been trumpeting from the rooftop, the American public has demanded a withdrawal from Iraq, why did they sell out so fast? It surely is not because of effective negotiations from the White House or the Congressional leadership.
The answer is simple. Regardless of what some polls may say, the American people support the war on terror, and support the efforts in Iraq. The Dems have the numbers to cut off all funding for Iraq. Throw in a few turncoat Republicans, and the deal is done.
Until 2008. The Dems know that.
Interestingly, the world is getting more conservative, not less, everywhere but in the U.S. Canada, Germany and France have moved rightward, and Spain may follow in their next election. In large part it is due to terrorism. In Europe, terrorism a la Moslem immigrants is a growing problem, particularly in France and the UK. Sarkozy's election was framed by the pictures of burning cars and rampaging youth.
And the U.S. is probably not as liberal as the Dems think, or the money for Iraq would be gone yesterday. The Republicans continue to shoot themselves in both feet by trying to act like Democrats, Democrats Lite. Add in a dash of corruption, and you have an election gone left.
The answer is simple. Regardless of what some polls may say, the American people support the war on terror, and support the efforts in Iraq.
Bush vetoed or threatened to veto every effort by the Democrats to answer to the American people polling in favor of timelines for withdrawal. A diminishing majority of Republican Congressmen continue to support the President and so an override is impossible. Unwilling to leave the troops unfunded, Democrats are doing what must be done. There's simply no other option. This has nothing to do with a repudiation of polling data.
The American people have never been in favor of timelines. If you ask them "Do you favor being out of Iraq in a year?" or "in six months" or "Do you wish we were out of Iraq now?", I think something on the order of 100% would say "Yes". Who wouldn't want that? That is not a timeline.
Why are the Dems unwilling to leave the troops unfunded, or to supply funds only for withdrawal? No timeline, just leave now?
Because the people, even a good chunk of Democrats, don't want immediate withdrawal, that's why. The Dems may be self-deluded, but they aren't completely innumerate.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
...how much his/her Party loves him/her - somewhere below teenaged spatula serfs, who can't even vote - and s/he's feeling a little blue right now.
It could be worse, though. Imagine how s/he'd feel if she contributed any money to these people last year. But that would have been just dumb.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Thanks Moe, your pointless snark is adding whole levels to the conversation.
As should have been obvious from my previous post, passing a clean funding bill is the best idea at this time. Why would it upset me?
Although the best way to ignore with dignity is to ignore with dignity.
(flush)
(flush)
Full points for trying to stoneface, though.
(flush)
(flush)
What? Oh, I'm tossing money down the toilet.
(flush)
(flush)
(flush)
I don't have time to send it to the DNC, you see.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
If you're trying to imply that I would donate money to the DNC, I believe that's a violation of posting rule #2.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
You really don't know when you're outmatched, do you?
[clue]
I think Moe is aware of the rules, and his right to break them. To a certain extent, Moe is the rules.
[/clue]
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
'Course, I was engaged in an area-effect attack, so you have to expect that somebody would make a saving throw.
To mix the metaphors. Or geekery. Or metageekery.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Not supporting immediate withdrawal is not the same thing as supporting the war as a whole. Immediate withdrawal is tactically retarded. I would imagine most Democrats do not support it because it is a monumentally stupid idea.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
At least some Dems are willing to admit the truth.
What a shock. A dark day for the Democrats, and a good day for America.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I don't like this. It smells fishy -- when does the press ever talk about Democrat defeats, Bush victories?
I suggest the White House check the bill for nano-sized lettering and the old disappearing ink trick.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
They may like dancing with Barack, but they'll be going home with Hillary.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
After she gets through ripping him apart in the primary season, she will have no choice but to take him on as her running mate. Kinda like Kennedy/Johnson in 60. She would like to take Richardson to take advantage of all those newly legalized (or nearly so) Hispanic voters, but will have to take Obama to hold onto the black voters she will have p*ssed off in the primaries. Too bad too, since Richardson is probably the only candidate on that side of the aisle with any real credentials to hold the office.
has proven itself to be a monolith of stupidity. The Witch doesn't need ObamaPajama to win the black vote. She just needs the D after her name.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
the dems that being President still means something.
So is Bush still a "lame duck" or a recuperating duck?
In fact, I'm not so sure I hear any quacking anymore. More like crow as it pokes the eyes out of the surrender now coalition's rotting corpse.
Do you think it's too late to hear an eagle again?
Bush isn't a lame duck. He is an albatross. His victory in funding for the war comes from the mis-calculation of the Democrats, who mis-read the 2006 elections. They thought that public impatience about the conduct of the Iraq War meant that the voters wanted an immediate withdrawal. There is a big difference, and most Democrats now know it. They don't want to go to the next presidential election looking "gutless" on national security. The Dems will just harrass Bush about Iraq. They won't do anything monumental. As I said before, the Congressional Republicans will not abandon the Iraq War, but they will distance themselves from the Bush Administation, as the next election comes nearer. Have you noticed how Bush is hardly ever mentioned in the Republican debates? Bush is their albatross. I think that the news media is also wrong. The next Congressional and Presidential Elections are wide open, if the Republicans can re-discover themselves in the next year.
...and that's the bottom line here.
The war WILL continue until January 2009 and then, depending on the election, will go forth or start to receeed.
Being President is EVERYTHING in this case.
sometimes it just feels good to gloat.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
I have a feeling that come September its going to get tougher.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed Tuesday a final Iraq spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals, but promised that Democrats would try to end the war using next year's spending bills.
So they've surrendered at home instead of in Iraq - for this year.
One of those "we'll get 'em next time" quotes you hear after a big game is lost; the question is, what will the nutroots have to say about it? I don't think they will be too happy being told to go sit on their hands and wait until next year...
this is tit for tat, we'll stop harassing your bill if you will sign on to our bill, illegal immigration. These people in Washington don't give one little whit about their base, they are all about preservation in or out of congress. If 12-20 illegals become legal along with their parents and children do you really think the Dems will care about the puny little left-wingers or their black constituencies? the latter having been taken for decades. The same for the right, Bush, McCain and Graham and so on do not give a damn about the base they are all egotistical small human beings. The moment they get voted out they are given some high paying job at some company they befriended along the way (John Edwards, good example), they are in a no lose situation and they just don't care.
I don't think the war will end in Jan 2009 if a democrat is elected. They're happy to hang defeat around the Republicans' necks, but they won't want a defeat on their watch.
hot cases of PDS which will result in tongue boils infused with the pus of disillusionment. I rejoice.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
...flaming hot cases of PDS which will result in tongue boils infused with the pus of disillusionment.
What an uplifting word-picture you have painted.
I had to spit out my gum.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Usually you only get screwed by one side or the other in politics… you guys managed to get it from both.