There's Feingold
railing against his party because he thinks the bipartisan resolution on Iraq they're trying to pass isn't strong enough. He's got his own bill, as several others do, but he hasn't figured a way to get past the republican opposition any more than the Democratic leadership he's criticizing has.
I can't tell what he's asking from his party. If it's a more strident bill, or a binding one, how does he expect to get it past the certain republican opposition? Is his idea of being 'tough' passing a partisan bill and sending it to Bush for a certain veto? That's what the effect would be if he managed to get his bill past the republican filibuster brigade. It would amount to nothing but a protest vote.
Today, Feingold is in the same position as the Democratic leadership because his own bill is being blocked along with the bipartisan, sense of the Senate resolution. Where's the 'courage' in that? Anyone can go off on their own and craft any strident, confrontational bill they want and call themselves a maverick and denounce everyone else and call them weak. But, in the end, the effect of Feingold's confrontational bill is the same as the bipartisan compromise.
The REAL obstacle to getting any rebuke to the floor has been constructed by the minority leader, McConnell, and his minions. I don't think for a minute that our Democratic leaders and members are sitting on their hands, in defeat. We have the majority, and unless the republicans have lost all desire to deliver the bacon to their constituents, they will soon capitulate.
But, to posture as if our Democratic leaders are, somehow, less concerned about confronting Bush, less determined, less courageous than the rest of us is just grandstanding without a reasonably effective plan to overcome the certain obstruction from the republicans. Here we are at the beginning of this Congress, and folks are behaving as if our party has already played out our last hand.
Even more ridiculous is the notion that throwing everything we have at the republicans first, without trying to compromise, would cause them to fold and our position to prevail. If that happens, it will not happen quickly. If we get to the point where ALL of the republicans are digging in their heels in defense of the White House on Iraq, there will be nothing we can do short of impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. I don't believe, as some do, that that prospect is at all assured or a simple proposition. At any rate, such a move against the White House would not happen quickly, and would likely carry over into the thick of the next presidential election cycle - causing them to dig in even further.
I think that what is needed is already being worked on by our party leaders. There will be plenty of points of access and accommodation that republicans will want to take advantage of. It should eventually dawn on them how legislatively humiliating the next two years will be for their members and constituents if they don't bend our way on Iraq. But, in the face of the opposition from the White House and their republican enablers the effort to hold Bush accountable will not materialize overnight. No matter how much folks want our party to just roll over the opposition, there just aren't enough votes among those we elected to sustain that right now. That's not the end of the process, it's the point of the effort where the rubber meets the road.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
