Opinion
Democrats wimp out, change little
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Henry Weiner:
- Not easy being green with lazy students (November 7, 2007)
- Halloween success story exaggerated (October 24, 2007)
- Democrats wimp out, change little (October 10, 2007)
- Wise up voters: Move past Iraq (September 28, 2007)
- Student diversity sets future tracks (September 12, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Nearly a year ago, in November 2006, a change in direction on Capitol Hill in Washington seemed to be looming large. Democrats had just taken over the Senate, as well as control in the House, giving them complete control of Congress for the first time since those good ole Clinton years of 1994. Republicans had been booted because many of the American people had grown tired of hearing about another controversy in Washington and especially the rising costs — both human and monetary — in Iraq.
The elated Democrats made vows and promises. New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced, "The days of the do-nothing Congress are over. … [Americans spoke] clearly and decisively in favor of Democrats leading this country in a new direction." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said, "This new Democratic majority has heard the voices of the American people."
So far these promises, in regard to the war in Iraq, have not been fulfilled.
Earlier this week, The New York Times reported that, after bashing the Bush administration's surveillance program endlessly, Democrats look as if they are going to concede and go along with Mr. Bush by extending "crucial powers given to the National Security Agency" for eavesdropping on American citizens. The bill would give a sweeping warrant to the security agency instead of requiring it to get specific warrants as is usually required.
Since they've been in power in Congress, Democrats have been speaking of the need to stop the futile war in Iraq, get our troops back home and cut down on the powers of the president. But when it comes down to crunch time, they roll over and give the administration pretty much anything it wants: the unabated right to continue eavesdropping on citizens and a $120 billion bill to continue the war in Iraq, in which they also abandoned their call for most U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
Experts have attributed this unwillingness to take a strong stand against the administration to the fact that Democrats fear they would be viewed as "soft on terrorism" if they were to slow funding to our troops or cut down on Mr. Bush's powers to collect intelligence. But how about this? According to two ABC News/Washington Post polls conducted in September, 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Mr. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, as well as 57 percent who disapprove of the way he is handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism in general. Why are Democrats so scared of slipping in the polls if a solid majority is actually against the policies they are voting to continue? Democrats in Congress need to stand up for the principles they have been preaching even before their elections and forget about a percentage point they may lose here or there because of their actions.
Granted, some bills concerning the war have been approved by Congress only to be stopped by the veto pen of a stubborn president. But this is hardly an excuse. Democrats need to come up with the solutions and results that they promised us when they came to power.
Sixty-six American soldiers died in September; ten already have lost their lives in October. I haven't even mentioned the $275 million we spent on it — yesterday! According to the National Priority Project, the taxpayers of Madison alone have dished out more than $270 million, for a war the Democrats continue to endorse in practice, even though in principle they claim not to.
I thought Congress was going to lead us in a "new direction" and "listen to the people."
Well, we're waiting.
Impatiently.
Henry Weiner (hweiner@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
14 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
So what’s your solution? Elect more Republicans instead? Yeah, that’ll really end the war — probably about the time your great-great-granchildren are drafted to fight in the second century of the war.
Vote Green Party! .. and please hold your comments about “that’s why we have bullshit” … the reason we have bush is because Gore sucked, shilled for the DLC and other corporate suits, and took the ubber-anti-racist zionist war-mongering hawk— Joseph Lieberman, as his vice-presidential candidate. Please don’t ask me to settle for another right-winger (i.e. Hillary).
The democrats have no choice. They have a 51 seat majority in the senate, 60 are needed to overcome the filibuster, 67 are needed to overcome a veto. They dont have nearly these numbers.
Dont attack people who are on your side. Blame the congressional republicans who have been lock and step with President Dubya since day one and are too stubborn to switch over.
Here here! Vote green and build an antiwar movement! We need a movement in the streets that is demanding of all politicians, Republican/Democrat/Independent/Green, to stop funding the war and bring the troops home. The majority of people in this country are against this war, so let’s make them listen to us!
I still have to wonder, why do we have to end the war? What will it accomplish?
“…and took the ubber-anti-racist zionist war-mongering hawk— Joseph Lieberman…”
Wow!! You liberals just can’t leave Jews alone, can you? No wonder liberals suck so much nowadays. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe your lowly socio-political stature is the result of God kicking your ass? God does that to you when you start making an ass of yourself. That’s what I like about God.
Perhaps the REAL reason for the 2nd ammendment will come into play yet.
Doing nothing is MUCH, MUCH better than the REPUBLICAN PORK FEST 2000-2006.
3:32 - Is this Bill Anderson finally making an appearance?!
I don’t see how you could ever, ever characterize Hillary as a right-winger, that’s just ridiculous. And guess what, Nader DID lose the election for Gore… him and the butterfly ballot.
12:44— Maybe if Gore had been a viable candidate in the first place and appealed to a real majority of Americans, he still would have won. Most Nader voters wouldn’t have voted for Gore anyways. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to vote for the candidate that best represented them? Seriously, if liberals were more concerned about their constituencies and solving the country’s problems instead of blaming everyone when they fail, Bush would be out of office and there would be rainbows and puppies everywhere you looked.
“Maybe if Gore had been a viable candidate in the first place and appealed to a real majority of Americans, he still would have won.”
You’re probably too young to remember that election, but Gore lost because he backed away from anything Clinton. The Clinton years were quite successful, but Gore bet that the voters were more interested in pay-back for Lewinsky.
HE WAS WRONG. Gore alienated his base by backing away from Clinton, who happened to be wildly popular despite his short comings. The liberal base decided that a “protest vote” was in order, because a candidate who did not embrace Clinton policies was seen as less-than-ideal.
Face it, Clinton was pretty middle of the road. He was good for Wall Street, good for college students, but intollerable to the fundamentalist right.
My solution was to give up voting
@ 12:44 - no, that post was way too short for Bill Anderson.
“Nader DID lose the election for Gore”
So what, Perot lost Bush I his second term.
Gore couldn’t even win his home state - that would hae put him over the top.