Our Dem legislator's political protection is as much about our goals as it is about their future

[bigtree]

Take Iraq, for instance. If they blow the politics and lose public support there will be nothing they can do to overcome the republican opposition to withdrawal.

Lots of folks are jumping on our Democratic leadership for what they call 'cowardice' as Reid and Pelosi have signaled they won't reject Bush's Iraq supplemental out of hand. But there is already a blistering attack brewing and foaming up from the Senate majority leader and the republican House leadership which accuses the Democrats of attempting to cut off funds from 'troops in harm's way'.

It's an easy mark because, unlike a binding withdrawal resolution which would directly confront Bush to cease operations, turning their backs on Bush's Iraq budget request puts the troops in the middle of their struggle of wills with the Executive with the anti-occupation Democrats promising that there's already enough money in the pipeline to take care of the soldiers left in the field while they wait for Bush to relent. It would be of no consequence for republicans to just sit back and claim that every shortfall, every lack of support or resource, was tied to the Democrats' refusal to allow funds to flow to Iraq, no matter how much money we assume they already have allocated to spend and for how long.

Even worse, the political hammer of the repeated lie would give cover for even more republicans to oppose any attempt to end the occupation. Right now, Democrats have the political high ground as they decry every republican action they had no part in. The second they pass their legislative rebuke they will be expected to assume their share of responsibility for the events in Iraq which follow that vote. Yet, without any control over where Bush actually directs the troops, Democrats are vulnerable to blame for whatever jeopardy Bush creates as he presses the soldiers forward.

I don't doubt that there are some members of our party who are worried about their political futures, but I think the overwhelming worry - especially from our new leadership - is that they could not only be saddled with blame if Bush continues his escalation without regard to the dwindling funds, but that they would be marginalized in the Iraq debate by the demagogue's rhetoric and the republicans would be emboldened to resist even further behind their manufactured stance against Democratic action.

. . . and, that's just covering the effect on our party's influence on Iraq. What about the rest of the legislation which would be marginalized along with a beleaguered leadership? If it's a matter of cowardice to resist, than it's likely there's something there which could hurt these legislators, and re-election for many is not as pressing a concern as their political effectiveness in this congressional session we've just elevated them to.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[The Magistrate]

1. Well Said, Sir

This is not nearly so straightforward a business as some seem to suppose....

[bigtree]

3. Our elected represent a diverse nation with a wide divergence of views and concerns

. . . and without a controlling majority they can either blow their top or try to actually achieve something legislatively which has the widest measure of support within and without Congress to sustain it into enacted law and into the action they intend.

[jwirr]

2. It comes down to the idea that for every action there is a consequence.

[bigtree]

4. that's exactly right, jwirr

. . . and the republican opposition isn't going to sit on their hands.

We need to create our own dynamic by taking the demand directly to Bush and coupling that effort with our own Iraq appropriations bill directing money for whatever withdrawal scheme they can manage.