In fact I complained bitterly when the ethics legislation passed earlier this year didn’t have stronger restrictions against earmarks, which I believe should be banned entirely, along with PAC contributions to election campaign chests.

I also would like to congratulate, in addition to Pelosi, those in the dreaded left-wing extreme, MoveOn, Kos, (myself), et al. who decided to support this less than ideal measure. As jjc points out the perfect should not become the enemy of the good.

At first blush I too was inclined to see it this way. But I’ve come around to Mike P’s view,

It seems to me you can’t be a “progressiveâ€? if you’re unwilling to make progress – no matter how lofty your ideals. Pelosi made it happen though, and for that she deserves the praise she has gotten.

I think that’s the long view that’s appropriate, the view that accepts that you’ll never rid the process of politics, but that you might at least improve the process and alleviate its flaws.

The government, considered as a whole, is escalating the conflict at a time when the population wants it de-escalated. The process of getting the government more in line with the population will, of necessity, be a political one, involving movement by the population as well as by the government.

I support this legislation because I think it will achieve at least some movement on both fronts. I think it likely that the Administration and its WSJ allies, intransigent and confrontational much as they’ve been all along in getting us to where we are now, will do some work for the centrists and Democrats in bringing the population around to the view that practical measures must follow if we are to achieve the goal of reducing our presence in Iraq.

Complain about pork if you must, but there are now bridges to nowhere in this bill. It is perhaps only slightly better than business as usual, but this is a case where I think it makes sense to point out that the perfect should not become the enemy of the good.

Yes, the Republicans did this same kind of thing when they were in power (surely you all remember the internet gambling ban that Bill Frist snuck into last autumn’s Port Security Bill?). But one party doing it doesn’t excuse the party from doing the same thing.

Democrats may have won the battle on this one, but they lost the moral high ground. Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, two of the House chamber’s most adamant critics of the war abandoned the Democrats on this vote.

Ron Paul’s argument against the bill can be found here.
Dennis Kucinich’s argument against the bill can be found here.

It seems to me you can’t be a “progressive” if you’re unwilling to make progress – no matter how lofty your ideals. Pelosi made it happen though, and for that she deserves the praise she has gotten.

But to the point, Pelosi has shown herself quite capable of whipping her caucus, and she has put herself on record, along with another 217 of her cohorts, as voting for an end to this war. And she has put those who voted against on record as well.

Sadly, given the close vote in the house, the closer margins in the Senate, and the President’s inevitable intransigience, the proposed timetable has slim chance of success.

However, success in getting this vote is not without consequence, and those who voted against may well find themselves making way for fresher voices in 2008.

And that is Pelosi’s true victory.