The Dems: More Bark Than Bite

[dogday]

Before they took control of the House and the Senate, Democrats had a lot to say about George W. Bush's use of Presidential power and what they claimed was Republican complicity in eroding both civil liberties and the authority of Congress. When the G.O.P. pushed through a bill granting Bush the ability to suspend the ancient right of habeas corpus for terror suspects, the man who would become the Democratic Senate majority leader after the election, Harry Reid, said, "The framers of our Constitution understood the need for checks and balances, but this bill discards them." Across the country Democratic candidates for both chambers of Congress painted their opponents as rubber stamps for Bush's failed policy in Iraq. And the day before the Nov. 7 vote that would vindicate his chairmanship of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, New York's Charles Schumer said voters were flooding to Democrats in part because they had decided that the country needed "some checks and balances in this government."

Now that they're in charge, Democrats are still talking the talk. This week, they are hammering away at Bush ahead of his Iraq speech while planning a resolution opposing his proposed troop increase in the war. Today incoming Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy held hearings on what he says are executive branch infringements on Americans' privacy. And on Thursday Leahy will have attorney general Alberto Gonzales appear before his panel for a wide-ranging oversight hearing, which the committee's spokesperson says will dig into the civil liberties issues Democrats raised in the campaign.

But when it comes to actually taking any action to check Bush's war powers, there's not much bite to the Democrats' bark. Which raises the question: will Democrats use their new power to rein in what they say is an overreaching President? Or will they choose to continue what proved to be a successful political strategy when they were in the minority: criticizing the Administration for unpopular policies while avoiding taking action themselves that could prove equally unpopular?

On Iraq, Hill Democrats have chosen the latter course. Sen. Edward Kennedy yesterday introduced a bill to block funding for deploying additional troops to Iraq. But Reid and the Democratic leadership prefer a non-binding, "sense-of-the-Senate" resolution opposing the troop increase that is designed to embarrass Bush by peeling off dissenting Republicans, without actually taking any action to block the move. Kennedy's proposal, leadership aides say, is a stalking horse designed in part to placate the base by attacking Bush while leaving Democrats who support the leadership's alternative safe from accusations they don't back the troops.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1576122,00.html

I hope this article is DEAD WRONG, The Democrats Have to be Strong right now

[mmonk]

1. The thing is, we don't know.

So far, rhetoric such as impeachment is off the table and the comments about Iran leave the possibility open they won't stop the neocons. I hope this isn't the case.

[dogday]

2. I hope this isn't the case as well

Now is the time for them to show what they are made of... Durbin's speech last night was good... I hope that actions will follow his words...

[screembloodymurder]

3. Don't blame the Dems.

Bush's war has put our country in a no-win position. You can't expect a Democratic solution until he admits failure. I'll support the troops when they decide not to support the President.

[seabeyond]

4. i think the democrats have been doing a kick ass job

and i am anticipating to see how things play out in the future. do i think the dems are going to be able to control bush.... i do not. that is not an expectation, but i do expect them to take him on, and i think they are doing a good and united job in this.