posted November 13, 2007 01:09 PM            

Democrats remain stalled on Iraq debate
By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
Nov 13, 2007 06:07 AM EST

Republican support for the war is probably stronger today than when Democrats took power.

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.

The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.

Indeed, the only war legislation enacted during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.

Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls.

Money woes keep GOP worried about 2008
Note to staffers: Trust your candidate
Rudy parody less than 'glamorous'
Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.

John Podesta, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, is advising Democrats to try to shift war policy around the edges while carefully setting the stage for an easier withdrawal when the next president takes office.

There may well have been paths not taken this year that would have produced better results.

But what the year has mostly highlighted is that Democrats and anti-war activists were in the grip of two illusions after their triumph in the 2006 elections.

The first illusion is that taking power on Capitol Hill was by its very nature — no matter the precise legislation that emerged — something that would alter the basic dynamics of Iraq policy.

Instead, it’s now clear that even a weakened, and in many ways discredited, president remains the dominant policymaker on Iraq.

For 50 years, legislators of both parties have ceded war-making power to the executive branch, and there is no reversing that in a matter of months — least of all when the opposition party is itself divided over what to do.

What’s more, it turns out that Washington matters less than many Democrats and even many journalists supposed in determining political momentum in the Iraq debate.

Events on the ground — including regular, if still fragmentary, evidence that security is improving somewhat in the wake of the military’s “surge” policy — matter more.

The second illusion is that Democrats could stall substantively and still prosper politically.

A few months ago, many lawmakers were saying something like this: “It’s true we can’t force Bush’s hand on Iraq because we do not have veto-proof majorities. But the longer he sticks with an unpopular war, the better it will be for Democrats, and eventually the moderates and war skeptics in the GOP will stage a full revolt.”

This might yet come true by the next election, in 2008. For now, it looks like substantive weakness — the failure to drive policy changes on Iraq — has reinforced political weakness.

“Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster,” according to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who analyzed public opinion on the nonpartisan Pollster.com.

“The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.”

This surprising turn has prompted a what-if debate among Democratic lawmakers.

Some of them have told us privately that their leaders botched a chance earlier this year — before the surge appeared to have some success — to work with Republicans on modest restrictions on the war.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told us last week his biggest fear early on was that Democrats would seek compromise solutions with moderate Republicans on the war and other issues.

Blunt suggested the strategy probably would have worked.

But once Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), a staunch war opponent, returned from a visit to Iraq and applauded the surge, any chance of a compromise clampdown ended.

Repeated predictions that GOP support was on the verge of collapsing never materialized, and Republican support for the war is probably stronger today than when Democrats took power.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the only strategic miscalculation Democrats might have made was “failing to grasp how much Republicans were willing to stick with the president.”

Still, he said Republicans pursued unity at their own peril.

“The Republicans own this thing, lock, stock and barrel.”

For the first time in years, Republicans are privately telling their members with a straight face that the war, in political terms, may be neutralized for next year’s election, which would have big ramifications for both sides.

A word of caution before we go into the numbers: Republicans remain broadly disliked, the war remains powerfully unpopular and opinion is prone to shift rapidly with events.

That said, 44 percent of Americans now believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well, a high point in the past year, according to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan group.

At the same time, CBS News polling has found U.S. opposition to Bush’s troop surge softening a bit.

Yes, public opposition to the war remains high.

But there has been a small uptick even in the number of independents and Democrats who are optimistic the surge might work (though most remain pessimistic).

The Democratic base’s negative view of the war also has lessened of late.

This summer, CBS News found that 57 percent of Democrats thought the war was going “very badly.”

Today, the number has fallen by 12 points, to 45 percent.

The changing views probably have little to do with Congress, said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“You have also had the near absence of the war coverage in the last months, and since the coverage is generally negative, the less coverage, the less negative communications that reaches people’s living rooms.”

Pew reported Friday that only 16 percent of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind today — a huge shift.

In January, when Democrats took office, 55 percent of Americans said Iraq was on the top of their minds.
Pelosi is trying to end the congressional year on a familiar note.

She is pushing for a House vote on legislation that would directly tie new money for the war to specific troop withdrawals.

It would provide Bush only $50 billion of the $196 billion he requested for war operations.

And it has no chance of becoming law. Manley said the Senate would push similar legislation, likely next week.

Meanwhile, both sides must contemplate the most dispiriting piece of Iraq arithmetic of all.

At the start of the year, there had been 3,003 U.S. military casualties in Iraq.

posted November 14, 2007 12:12 PM            

quote:

---

Based on just what we've seen here in this forum it's obvious that a lot of people don't realize that despite holding the majority in both houses of Congress, Democrats don't hold enough power to enact the change they would like to. Their majority is so slim they can't override a veto. Therefore, they can't force an agenda. This is not a failure on the part of Democrats, but rather a simple numbers game. The way our government is set up makes Democrats powerless now except on bipartisan issues that can garner enough votes to override vetos...acoustic

---

Seems I've seen this response before acoustic...word for word. Is this to become your standard...copied and pasted response to posts on this forum? One size fits all?

Well, it is easier that actually reading, thinking and constructing an argument in rebuttal...that is...if there actually IS an argument in rebuttal.

posted November 14, 2007 01:06 PM            

Between Reality and Spin Doctors, reality always wins.

It is precisely because of your ignorance of reality that I stopped arguing with you. I didn't intend to argue with you on this point either. I just wanted to give the truth equal time, because I've seen that people have been fooled by not understanding the dynamic currently at play: The Democrats control Congress, but they can't control the President or the Government, because they simply don't have the numbers required. End of story.

posted November 15, 2007 01:02 PM            

If leftists put as much effort into researching facts as they do fact and truth avoidance perhaps their arguments would at least make some sense. Too much to ask I know.

Factually, one doesn't have to actually know anything at all to be a leftist. In truth, facts, to leftists, are akin to showing the cross to vampires; something to be avoided at all costs.

BTW acoustic, yesterday the House passed yet another Bill of Surrender aimed at aiding terrorists. These dem-o-scats are doing their level best to appease the loony-bin leftists who are the base of the dem-o-scat party.

Bush has already vowed to veto the Bill...if it gets past the Senate.

Of course, these leftist morons would not step up to the plate and take the blame...if their Surrender Now policy was adopted and a bloodbath followed in Iraq. A bloodbath is exactly what would follow but leftists would not shoulder their responsibility for bringing it about.

The exact same situation existed in Vietnam. Leftists in aid of the enemy cut off funds to South Vietnam and a bloodbath immediately ensued where up to 3 million South Vietnamese and Cambodians were systematically slaughtered by the communists. Untold numbers also perished attempting to flee in boats, many of which capsized.

posted November 15, 2007 02:06 PM            

I told you the art of government is persuasion and compromise. That's how legislation gets enacted.

dem-o-scats have proved to be unable to persuade Republicans to raise taxes...and destroy our long running and booming economy and also surrender to terrorists in Iraq and percipitate a bloodbath there.

dem-o-scats are unreasonable ideologues with which no compromise can be reached.

So acoustic, dem-o-scats are paying the price for attempts to appease the most far left radicals...socialists and communists...who are the base of the
dem-o-scat party.

posted November 15, 2007 02:48 PM            

quote:

---

You're the king of copy and paste acoustic, not I.

---

Said the Ann Coulter poster, and likely the most frequent article poster. You should perhaps rethink that.

Both Houses of Congress are nearly tied in numbers of Republicans and Democrats. Both Houses require a two-thirds vote to override the President's veto. Simple numbers.

Talk of compromise is moot. That requires both parties, not just one.

Talk of the substance of what's been proposed is also moot as these people were voted in to do specifically what they are trying to do. You can't say that they are wrong for attempting to do what they promised to do.

It's a numbers game pure and simple. If people don't like that Congress is ineffective in pushing through it's legislation, then they should pressure Republicans to get on board. Only then will the legislation get passed. Otherwise, it's an understandably lame-duck Congress, because it's hands are tied.

This message brought to you by 66%, the number required for Congress to do anything not in the President's will.

posted November 15, 2007 03:23 PM            

This is a narrowly split Congress. It's at these times...just like the last Congress which was also narrowly split..that persuasion and compromise are necessary ingredients to manage and pass legislation.

Last Congress, Republicans got the job done..through persuasion and compromise.

This Congress, dem-o-scats are incapable of getting anything done. Mainly because they're far left ideologues who refuse to compromise. Republicans are telling them to stuff it when this leftist Congress attempts raising taxes or surrendering in Iraq. Neither is in the best interests of the United States. It's only in the interest of appeasing the dem-o-scat loony socialist base.

These are the lowest job approval ratings ever recorded for any Congress in history. Americans rightly blame the do nothing democrats....who came into Congressional power talking the big talk but can't deliver on their promises to the loony left.

It's turning into a real pity party. Break out the Kleenex.

posted November 16, 2007 02:05 PM            

Now, they can't deliver and there was never any reason for them to believe they would have a bullet proof majority which could over-ride a presidential veto...or even muster the 60 votes needed in the Senate to move legislation along.

Leftists make the mistake they have a mandate for change but they don't. Attempting to force the loss of a war most of the brain dead moron leftist democrats voted for is turning America against them.

The facts are that a bare handfull of votes swung the Congress from Republican to democrat majorities in the 2006 election.

I remember the Corrupt Duo of Bill and Hill promising to be "agents of change" before the 1992 election.

They sure did deliver....the most corrupt administration...politically, morally and financially in American presidentially history.

democrats received no mandate in the 2006 elections. If they had, there would be huge majorities in both Houses of Congress, large enough to be fillibuster and veto proof.

posted November 16, 2007 02:34 PM            

Though the majority is slim, I think it's safer to say that Democrats received a mandate by gaining control of Congress than Bush did by squeaking out a victory in the last election.

quote:

---

democrats received no mandate in the 2006 elections. If they had, there would be huge majorities in both Houses of Congress, large enough to be fillibuster and veto proof.

---

posted November 17, 2007 01:50 PM            

We are a results oriented society.

A narrow majority is not a mandate

"Years of rule by a single party acoustic? You are a good little leftist aren't you acoustic? Americans are not under the rule of Congress or anyone else. Under the rule of law..yes

Of course, you've forgotten all about the fact the House went democrat in the election of 1996...with a corrupt democrat in the White House...haven't you? Fortunately, that was corrected in the elections of 2000.

Your little leftist buddies failed in the Senate...yet again...to micromanage the war...cut military funding and impose restrictions on Executive Branch authority to direct the war the Congress authorized.

For some reason, these leftist morons believe they are all Commander in Chiefs of US military forces. Up theirs.

posted November 17, 2007 02:42 PM            

quote:

---

"Years of rule by a single party acoustic? You are a good little leftist aren't you acoustic? Americans are not under the rule of Congress or anyone else. Under the rule of law..yes

---

So Republicans didn't rule our Government in the years leading up to Democrats obtaining the majority status in Congress?

quote:

---

Of course, you've forgotten all about the fact the House went democrat in the election of 1996...with a corrupt democrat in the White House...haven't you? Fortunately, that was corrected in the elections of 2000.

---

posted November 19, 2007 01:19 PM            

democrats can...and should be slammed from every angle acoustic. Not only are they corrupt as a party but they don't have the right stuff to get the job done in Congress.

Beyond that, it takes at least 2 to unite. democrats have attempted to undermine the Bush administration from the very beginning; attempted to block tax cuts which have kicked the economy into high gear and they've attempted to undermine not only the war they voted for but have and still are attempting to undermine the US military they voted to send to war.

There's nothing good there acoustic, not even in the name of the party. There's nothing democratic about the democrat party.

Here's your assignment acoustic...if you choose to put forth the notion the US is a democracy.

Find the word democracy in the Declaration of Independence..or...in the Preamble to the Constitution...or..in the Constitution itself.

Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
James Madison

Democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

Now acoustic...if you're still here and functioning...go to Article IV, Section 4 US Constitution...and find this...just so you can read it for yourself.

Article IV, Section 4
Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

No acoustic, Republicans did not rule over the Congress, over the federal government or over the people of the United States.

Republicans governed under the rule of law and with the consent of the governed...because acoustic, the United States is a Constitutional Republic...and not a tyranny of the majority.

posted November 20, 2007 12:52 PM            

Done in by absurd definitions of common words, done in by absurd leftist FantasyLand conclusions which are not facts, done in by absurd oblique, off point arguments, done in by posting absurd gossip, innuendo, rumor, supposition and outright lies and finally acoustic, done in by colossal and willful ignorance of material facts and law....the latest of which is that dem-o-scats are entitled to RULE...as opposed to GOVERN under the RULE OF LAW..but they are rather, to RULE, by virtue of having won majority positions in the House and Senate.

We have no RULERS in America acoustic, no Kings, no Queens, no Barons and no Counts. Titles of nobility are strictly forbidden by the US Constitution.

posted November 20, 2007 01:40 PM            

This leftist dem-o-scat led congress has wasted it's valuable time attempting to criminalize politics, convened countless committees to investigate what is merely political but certainly not criminal wrong doing...like the firing of 6 or 8 US Attorneys. Commander Corruption fired EVERY (ALL) US ATTORNEY(s), INCLUDING THE US ATTORNEY WHO WAS INVESTIGATING COMMANDER CORRUPTION AND HIS CORRUPT WIFE HILLARY

These leftist morons are seen as the know nothing, do nothing Congress because they are the Know Nothing, Do Nothing Congress and deserve their 11% job approval ratings.

Bush, on the other hand has far higher job approval ratings than these leftist congressional morons.

Because that's true...and it is true..a fact acoustic...that blows the hell out of your absurd contention that the American people sent these leftist morons to Congress TO OPPOSE Bush, oppose the war, defund the troops, oppose Bush tax cuts and generally oppose every Bush initiative in sight....and since the morons are failing...that's the reason for the 11% congressional job approval ratings...says you.

Your argument is based on an obvious faulty premise...as usual.

posted November 21, 2007 12:14 PM            

Listening to these moronic leftist twits is like hearing propaganda straight from terrorist as$es.

dem-o-scat morons are batting 0 for a zillion so far and there's no relief in sight for the leftist twits.

posted November 21, 2007 01:11 PM            

Bush and Congress are apples and oranges are they not? One person versus hundreds of people.

Who disapproves of Bush? Democrats, Independents, and maybe some independent-minded Republicans.

Who disapproves of Congress? Republicans, because they lost control. Independents, because their attempt [through voting in a Democratic Congress] at checking the President's power proved insufficient. Democrats, because Congress hasn't been able to push their agenda forward.

posted November 24, 2007 12:13 PM            

Now, the Queen of Corruption, aka Hillary has gone on record as saying she will not guarantee all US troops will be out of Iraq...by the end of her 1st term of office...ditto Obama.

The President's higher job approval rating...much higher than the leftist dem-0-scat led Congress...means exactly what the numbers say. The American people approve of the job Bush is doing to a far greater degree than that of the leftist dem-0-scat led congress.