Redstate

in which the nutroots remind one of a very bad song

By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Cue the video. Enjoy the ambiance. And read on.

Below the estimable Moe Lane draws our attention to a piece of analysis by NBC News's "political unit" (the mind boggles at what that might actually be).

It's clear now that Democratic leaders on both sides of the Capitol are moving towards dropping their insistence on a end date deadline for completing troop withdrawal from Iraq.

[...]

It wasn't supposed to work out this way. Throughout the spring Democrats had talked of how they were hammering away at Republican resistance on deadline legislation, speaking of the "arc" that votes had progressively taken towards the Democratic position. September was to be a watershed moment for congressional action on the war, with the expectation that Republicans were going to start bucking the White House. The strategy was to change Republican votes, not to change the underlying legislation.

Today's Washington Post has more on this:

Those reports have helped stoke a brewing rebellion among moderate lawmakers from both parties, who see an opportunity to drive their leaders toward compromise. Democratic leaders have signaled they are open to a more bipartisan approach to Iraq that would force the Bush administration to begin publicly planning for troop withdrawals but would stop short of requiring a firm timeline.

"Clearly, we don't have the numbers to override the president's vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "nor do we expect to for a long time."

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.

Their ostensible plan is to moderate their insistence on an immediate defeat and precipitous withdrawal and through this ruse inveigle "moderate" Republicans into voting for this in sufficient numbers to override a presidential veto. And therein, to quote The Bard, lies the rub.

To gain sufficient votes from spineless Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to override a veto, the Plosi-Murtha-Reid toika have to give up the notion that they can fix a withdrawal date, or even influence the date greatly. If the give ground there then they have a problem finding enough votes to pass those bills in the first place.

"Rather than picking up votes, by removing the deadline to get our troops out of Iraq, you have lost this Democrat's vote," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), a presidential candidate. "It is clear that half measures are not going to stop this president or end this war."

Bingo.

He's right.

The proposal put forth by Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to subsitute a requirement that the Administration begin planning a withdrawal for the idea of a finite date of withdrawal is nothing more than a second vote in favor of continuing the war. On the other hand, a vote to end the war, especially with measurable changes in the tactical situation in Iraq, is simply a non-starter.

Back to the song.

The people who you see missing from this discussion are the nutroots, the anti-American left, the islamofascist sympathizers, the latter day poputchiki, the grand coalition who in 2006 thought they had finally bought their way into respectability and as a result of their cash were entitled to call the shots.

How does it feel to be punked?