Feckless Fools

So this is why we elected Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in last fall's historic takeover on Capitol Hill - to cut and run from a straight-up policy fight over the single issue that put our candidates in power? To back down from a weak and defeated President and his corrupt and morally bankrupt administration just because we couldn't handle a few, meager Republican brickbats on little-watched cable gabfests over the holiday weekend? To dissemble in pathetic, groveling fashion about compromise and "benchmarks" - to actually stand up there and claim victory in the battle over war funding?

No. No. That is not the reason. We funded them, and supported them, and canvassed for them, and blogged for them, and linked to them, and promoted them, and elected them for one central reason: to end this stinking war.

If these be Democrats, call me independent.

Call them weak, cowardly, spineless and ill-informed. More on that last one: these people actually believe that they still need to seem tough, to posture mightily in the so-called "war on terror" to appeal to the "American heartland," which is not as "liberal" as they are. Talk about brain-suck. Reid and Pelosi (and Obama and Clinton, for that matter, who will vote next week) are still buying into that lame-ass pollster-speak, those tired fear-driven post-9/11 squeaks. Their electorate tells them one thing; they don't believe it. Democrats, says Markos:

...appear to have learned nothing from the last few elections, and continue to cling to outdated CW like, "Voters think Democrats are weak because we don't want to bomb the shit out of other countries." Voters think Democrats are weak -- and I'm in this camp -- because if Democrats don't fight for what they believe in, then what will they fight for? How can we trust them to do what's right when they'll jump at shadows?

So they fold to a pair of deuces (at best), never calling with the royal flush of a grand electoral sweep. Talk about power hard-earned, never-used. Maybe the conventional wisdom is right. Maybe this generation of Democrats is allergic to actually using power. Maybe polls and triangulation are all they know. Or maybe Karl Rove and his bullies just scare the pants off 'em (as Taylor Marsh suggests):

Armed with only a bullhorn and a message against the war in Iraq, one protester kept screaming during Mr. Bush's press conference. He's got more spine than the DC Democrats and rubber stamping Republicans combined, who are currently preparing to kiss the president's ring on Iraq. Oh, but it's all in the name of "supporting the troops," right? Sure, if you call being afraid of what everyone will say if you refuse to continue to escalate the Iraq war. Sure, if you think having no particular plan is a good way to run a war.

According to the New York Times, the flags and bunting of Memorial Day sent the Dems a scurryin':

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

Well guess what? The left is pissed. So's the Goddamned center, by the way. Abject cowardice in the face of a great decision is never endearing. Keith Olbermann says it well:

The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

Let's revisit one of those campaigns from last summer - one that charged up all of us wild-eyed peyote smokers in the netroots (with our fusty hemp togs and quaint socialist manners) - the energetic underdog campaign of a musical man named John Hall. I liked Hall, pushed for him, met some of his people and was thrilled when he defeated a tired Bush apologist by the name of Sue Kelly. Today, John Hall voted for a parliamentary slight of hand that put the funding bill up for vote with no timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Tonight, I am incredibly disappointed by John Hall and I hope when he goes home to his district this weekend, he hears it from the majority that sent him to Washington to end the war.

Defunding was the power that Pelosi and company had - but they turned feckless and fearful. Digby:

Sure enough, we were forced to watch the extremely unpleasant spectacle John Kerry doing his clumsy pas de deux a thousand times trying to explain to the robotic press corps that he gave "authorization" to the president, but didn't actually vote for war --- and then later how he was for supplemental funding before he was against it. (Yes, I knew this was a "nuanced" position, but it disasterously played into every negative Democratic stereotype.)

Damned if we might be seeing the same thing unfold all over again. I accept that the supplemental funding bill will pass as is. And I accept that there will be some faithless Dems who will cross over and give Bush his "bipartisan" cover. Bush is determined to continue with this debacle and that still scares pols from conservative districts and states. (I won't even go into the marshamallows who call themselves Republican "moderates" in more liberal districts, but I'm looking forward to helping the Dems defeat them.) But I never in a million years thought that we would re-run 2004 again, and the prospect of having to watch our candidates do verbal gymnastics explaining why they didn't vote for the one thing that could have ended the war --- de-funding --- is almost incomprehensible.

See, the leadership thinks this was the safe vote, the the wild-eyed left will be angry but that middle-of-the-roaders will buy the "abandon the troops" lie of the Republicans. But I think they're wrong, that they've miscalculated terribly. So does Jane Hamsher:

Have the Democrats so rigorously internalized the notion that the extremely unpopular GOP is better at PR and will be able to capitalize on it when the Democrats do exactly what the country elected them to do that they are struck with paralysis?

Yeah, I know.  I shouldn't be surprised. (And really, I'm not). And we should all remember that this is Bush's war. But many of us worked to elect people who vowed to end Bush's war. And today, they violated their pledge to voters - and sullied their personal oaths of office.

UPDATE: Both Clinton and Obama voted against it. Good for them.

UPDATE II: Clinton's statement is clear - so clear and politically smart, it makes me wonder why Pelosi and Reid folded so easily:

Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation.  I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment.  But the President vetoed Congress’s new strategy and so Congress must reject the President’s failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.

 

Comments

[B Tween]

it just makes me so incredibly sick. these guy campaigned on promises they'd have the brass balls to stand up to the administration. What did they prove? Their balls are made of eggshells, and the dearth of leadership is as bad as it was during the last congress.
Pathetic.

[Tom K]

The Dems. are in an impossible situation, which could be avoided only if they had vision and convictions.

Having supported the war as a group, they are left criticising the execution, rather than the fact, of it. (And no, I don't buy the notion that they were "misled" by Bush. They went along, figuring the could reserve the right to criticize. But they failed to appreciate that that was all they reserved).

If they had a fundamental vision of US foreign policy that defined narrowly those interests that justify military intervention, and the courage to vote their convictions, they could vote their conviction, explain how their philosophy applies to this situation, and let the chips fall where they may.

But they are basically interventionist and overly concerned about the politics. From that point of view they are stuck. Defund, and allocation of blame for the failure that otherwise would belong to Bush becomes the subject of argument. Don't defund, and they let Bush run out the clock on his Admin., either leaving failure to the next Pres. (a D?), or awaiting developments (re: Iran or otherwise) that might change the whole discussion.

Hillary, of course, has played this masterfully. She made the vote necessary for the primaries, secure in the knowledge that, since she was in the minority, there will be no short-term consequences for her to answer for. Her tactical genius would be admirable if it weren't so disgusting.

[b tween]

Tom K:
In either scenario, their nuanced political calculations prove one thing (which you also pointed out). They utterly lack conviction, and will make craven caclulations on how best to exploit a grotesque situation.
This freshman clas of relative neophytes is playing the game like a team of old pros.
Pity for the country and the rest of the world.

[Ralph]

Ah, so NOW Clinton is being tough about the war? I am fed up with all of the candidates who gave this nut authority to use force in Iraq. They knew the case for war was bullshit, they knew our troops and Iraqis would die, but they went along with it for political reasons. To hell with them all. The only choice is http://kucinich.us