DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS--What Were they Thinking?
All week the in-box of my e-mail has been stuffed with screaming outrage. Thurdsay the Democratic led congress handed Resident GEORGE W. BUSH the fabulous gift of almost complete surrender on funding the WAR IN IRAQ. After a “compromise” deal was worked out with the White House the measure cleared both houses on Thursday. MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID voted for the measure. In an act of slight of hand SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI voted against it while letting her leadership team advance the bill. The lip-stick-on-the-pig, meant to mollify a public demanding an end to the war, is that for the first time Bush will have to accept “benchmarks” for progress from the Iraqi government in getting control of the country. Make that optional earmarks. Shrub can wave them if he sees fit.
As part of the deal, the Democrats got to bundle some spending initiatives unrelated to the bill-most of them worthwhile. And they finally got the long treasured MINIMUM WAGE increase, albeit with tax-cut bribes for business. Great. Just great. By tying those measures to the bill they invite the Republicans to mock them and unprincipled pork-barrel traders and the corrupt recipients of public bribes. It will make no difference that the corrupters and bribers are the Maladministration and the GOP (stands for Got Ours, Patsy) Congressional minorities.
With in moments of the announcement of the “deal” by Democratic leaders earlier in the week, jubilant Republicans were claiming a total Democratic capitulation to the President’s insistence on “no surrender dates.” They also knew that the Democrats were now full partners in the war. By playing Tweedle Dee to Tweedle Dum Democrats were neutralizing the war as an election issue.
There can be no question that this is both a policy and a political disaster for Congressional Democrats. No one now believes them when they claim that they will stand fast when they tackle the subject again when the regular Defense Department funding bill comes up for consideration in July.
So what will the vote achieve? Can any silk purse be knit from this sows ear? One good thing is that the vast network of anti-war organizations, websites, blogs and publications have become instantly re-unified. Just months ago stand-fasters like DEMOCRATS.COM, CODE PINK, and others were at the throats of “pragmatists” at MOVEON and moderates like the COUNCIL FOR A LIVABLE WORLD when the latter went along with Nancy Pelosi’s incremental approach to a funding bill. This week there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference in the outrage all expressed or in the intensity in mobilizing their supporters to swamp Congress with protest.
Dozens of Democratic incumbent Congress people and Senators who have signed on to the capitulation will now be the targets of well financed and organized primary challengers as the grass roots rises up to seize the party and not only make it a true peace party, but drive it significantly to the left. Things look bleak indeed for “triangulators” and DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL types.
This also will have a major impact on the Presidential race. Marginal dark horses who have been consistently and vocally anti-war may be the beneficiaries of those now taking pledges never to vote for anyone who approves of this measure. Score points for DENNIS KUCINICH, MIKE GRAVEL, and CHRISTOPHER DODD. If one of them could establish himself as a clear alternative he could suddenly find himself both funded and a real player in some of the primary states.
Established anti-war candidates BARACK OBAMA and JOHN EDWARDS will do alright as well. Edwards came out strongly against the temporary funding measure a few days ago in a policy speech to the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, where he outlined a detailed proposal for ending the war. Out now hardliners might not, however like the details of his plan which calls for removing the bulk of U.S. troops by the end of the year but maintaining a strong presence in Kuwait and the Gulf and even a sizable garrison in Baghdad to “protect the embassy.” Like it or not this is version of JOHN MURTHA’S earlier proposal of maintaining a regional presence “over the horizon.” Obama, who got to cast a vote against the measure in the Senate, has been less detailed but tends in the same direction. And in point of fact this is how America will get out of the war, no matter how unsatisfactory to the bring-‘em-all-home-now crowd.
HILLARY CLINTON also voted against the funding. Will that be enough to placate the rabidly anti-Hillary peace left? Or will she be seen as bending to the whims of polls and thus sully the image as a “strong” leader she has carefully built. The right already hates her. They will take special delight in smearing her now as a “flip-lopper” and a “surrender monkey.” She calculates that the public’s absolute rejection of the war and its sycophantic boosters that she can weather that storm. A new CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES presidential preference poll showed her picking up seven points over the past two weeks and now enjoying a wide lead over Obama. Maybe the move can actually woo the anti-war public as opposed to the anti-war movement, which will never embrace her.
JOHN KERRY who, despite dropping out of the race following an embarrassing case of foot-in-the-mouth disease, has scrupulously maintained his campaign e-mail list and today made a point of touting his vote against the bill. He may still harbor fantasies of the Party turning to him after the main contenders cannibalize each other. Fat chance.
By coincidence AL GORE launched his new book ASSAULT ON REASON, stinging rebuke to the post “reality based” trips of the Bush administration, this week. That gave him the opportunity to pummel “failed leadership” not just in the White House, but in Congress and the Courts as well. He was everywhere from the Sunday morning talking head shows to DAVID LETTERMAN. And while maintaining constantly (and most of his friends believe it) that he does not intend to run for President, he has lately made a point of saying “never say never.” A hugely laudatory profile in the NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE by JAMES TRAUB has been circulated throughout the net by several blogs and websites and hints that Gore might be mulling a “late entry” into the race if the front runner falter and there is a “grassroots” demand. A number of high powered political pros have refrained from signing on with other campaigns and are setting up an un-official shadow operation. Gore growing iconic status and the yearning of many Democrats may overwhelm his desire not to run. Were he to announce there would be a stampede of supporters deserting other campaigns for Gore. It might not be enough to put the former vice-president over the top, but it could sink campaigns with shallow support-Hillary being the most vulnerable.
What ever happens, the anti-war movement will be tempted to jettison its attachment to the Democratic Party-a move longed for by the left militants of such demonstrations machines as THE WORLD CAN’T WAIT. We could see an up-turn in street demonstrations, direct action, and civil disobedience and the development of a movement reminiscent of the Vietnam War resistance. That could drain maybe tens of thousands of dedicated, motivated boots-on-the-ground troops that Democrats were counting on next year not only for the Presidential campaign, but to build solid majorities in both houses of Congress.
To end the war and to build a Democratic Party strong enough to advance a positive progressive agenda, Congressional Democrats must find a way to say no to the least popular President in history. And they have to find that way fast.
Now is the moment to raise Hell, or Hell will surely find us.