Missing In Action: The Democratic Mandate
Was it really only four months ago that an emergent Democratic majority in Congress prepared to march boldly into the future and deal decisively with all of those vexing problems facing the republic, most especially the Mess in Mesopotamia?
It seems more like four years ago considering that, as The New York Times notes:
The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday entered a critical five-week struggle over the financing of the war in Iraq and the overall mission there, divided over strategy, stymied by ideological divisions, but still hoping to escalate pressure on the White House to change the course of the war.
In the Senate, a proposal to repeal the 2002 Congressional war authorization faced skepticism on two fronts. Some liberal Democrats expressed unease at the prospect of approving a new military mission, even a narrower one, while moderate Republicans said they preferred to look ahead rather than revisit the past.
In the House, Democrats debated what conditions should be attached to the nearly $100 billion spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, scheduled for a floor vote in March. Democratic leaders convened a spirited meeting of their caucus to begin sorting out the lawmakers’ varying views, hoping to defend against Republican charges that they were planning a cutoff in troop financing.
Things sure looked easier to the Dems when they were on the outside looking in, eh?
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Missing In Action: The Democratic Mandate”
What mandate? The Democrats never defined what they stood for, only what they stood against. Now we’re seeing the results of that. I’ve been saying this since before the election and I hate to say I told you so, but I wonder if anyone now wonders if it wasn’t such a good idea for the Democratic platform to have been so vague about what they would actually do about Iraq?
CS I can’t resist an “I told you so” myself (oddly I was going to write that before seeing your comment where you said one yourself). Your fears that the Democrats would take a page from the Republican playbook and order their members into line through force were completely unfounded.
Shaun,
What did you expect the Dems to accomplish regarding Iraq?
The reason the Dems were so vague about Iraq before the election is because there aren’t any good options anymore. The best thing the Dems can do is to keep the pressure on Bush and they have done that. You may have heard that Bush deployed an additional 21,000 + troops in Iraq recently. Do you think he would have done that if the Repubs were still in charge of the Senate and the House?
BlueNeponset:
Do not read more into my post than what’s there. I had no expectations. I just couldn’t resist sticking it to them.
Huh? So the Dems are responsible for the surge plan?
mikkel,
Fair enough dig at me for fears of democratic unity LOL. That obviously hasn’t materialized on the Iraq issue, but honestly I fear that more on domestic policy; and even there, I think that Pelosi is a smart enough politician not to push too far during the next two years, but I do still have concerns about ’08 and beyond if the Dems keep the majority in Congress and especially if they also gain the Whitehouse.
C. Stanley,
I do think the Dems bear a great deal of responsibility for the Surge plan. If the Repubs had held onto the Senate or the House I think Bush would have taken that as a sign that his Iraq policy was OK with the public and he wouldn’t have changed it in any way.
Shaun,
I thought the main idea espoused by most moderates was the belief that results are more important than rhetoric. If that is the case, what is the point of rhetorically poking the Dems in the eye for its own sake?
Blue,
If that is the case, then why are the Dems so opposed to the surge plan?? Seems to me that you’re rather talking in circles here. Take credit for forcing Bush to change policy but then fight him tooth and nail on the actual policy, without proposing a coherent alternative. I’m missing the part where this is a good thing.
[...] My friend Shaun Mullen has a post this morning (at TMV) titled “Missing in Action: The Democratic Mandate“, in which he writes: Was it really only four months ago that an emergent Democratic majority in Congress prepared to march boldly into the future and deal decisively with all of those vexing problems facing the republic, most especially the Mess in Mesopotamia? [...]
Whatever the Democratic “mandate” was, could not be accomplished with a narrow majority in the House, and almost a virtual tie in the Senate. The Dems only hope to curb Bush on the war, was getting bipartisan support. When it became apparent that the GOP was under too much pressure from McConnell and the WH to join the Democrats, they imploded. To be fair, I do think the GOP has outmaneuvered them politically, and made them look weak and splintered, instead of the other way around.
One thing I was very surprised about— why in the world would Nancy Pelosi allow Rep Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security Committee? If Justice has proof that he took a $90K bribe they should indict him already.
I heard something about the GOP trying to unseat him????Anyone know??
kritter:
From The Hill.
Thanks, Polimom.