OPINION & EDITORIAL
Democrats play dangerous game
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Hahn:
- Recent polls reveal... absolutely nothing (December 4, 2007)
- 'Right to bear arms' stands up to scrutiny (November 27, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- The pitfalls of holistic admissions (November 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Democrats wimp out, change little (October 10, 2007)
- Democrats' stance on war cowardly (February 22, 2007)
- In battle over funding, Dems have power, potential (October 30, 2007)
- Pelosi's style prevents progress (November 28, 2006)
- Gore good choice for nomination (March 15, 2007)
by Mike Hahn
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
It was only a year ago that the newly elected Democratic
congressional majority declared they had received a clear mandate from the
American people to end the war in Iraq and to reverse President Bush's "failed"
policies. Coming into 2007, we were assured again and again by Speaker of the
House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
that the new Democratic majority would put an end to the war and impose a
timetable for troop withdrawals.
Here we are nearing the end of the year and not only are the
troops still in Iraq, but thanks to the surge there are more soldiers in
theater today than when the Democrats took back Congress. If the Democrats did
indeed possess a mandate for change, why are we still in Iraq?
Of course the short answer is the president still has his
veto pen. Indeed, in this year alone Mr. Bush has wielded his veto pen more
times than in all of the first six years of his administration, but such an
explanation fails to address the fact that a bill including a timeline for
troop withdrawal has only reached the president's desk once. More than 40 votes
have been taken in Congress attempting to bring an end to the war, and they
continually fail. The most recent failed attempt was a bill by Wisconsin's very
own Rep. Dave Obey that would have "redeployed" all combat troops from Iraq.
The bill had passed the House but died, as almost all of these troop withdrawal
bills do, in the Senate where the Republicans threatened a filibuster. Some
Republicans hailed it as a victory, while Democrats have decried Republican
obstructionism.
None of this should be too surprising. After all, even if
the Senate were to pass Mr. Obey's retreat legislation, we all know that Mr.
Bush will veto the bill and there is no two-thirds majority to override it. The
really odd thing is that this was not the most important vote the Senate took
during their session last Friday. Actually, the vote taken immediately before
the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Act is far more interesting. The
Democrats had actually used the same tactic as the Republicans — the threat of
a filibuster — to defeat the emergency supplemental spending bill that would
fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There was no timetable attached, no pork barrel spending to
buy votes — the Democrats in the Senate simply decided they were no longer
going to fund the war. It took almost an entire year for the Democrats to
summon the courage to actually do this, but they seem to have finally drawn a
line in the sand on war funding.
Let me say the Democrats are wrong and they are playing a
very dangerous game, but this is perhaps the strongest statement the Democrat
majority has made against Mr. Bush. In statements made after the vote, Mr. Reid
assured members of the press that the Army would have funds available at least
through February 2008 and that there is no need to pass the supplemental bill
now.
In essence, the Senate Democrats are going to play chicken
on war funding with the president, and they are hoping he blinks first.
This has happened before. Back in the '90s, then-Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich went toe-to-toe with President Clinton on domestic
appropriations. The stalemate ultimately led to a government shutdown, and Mr.
Gingrich and other Republican lawmakers were planning that the American people
would blame the president. Well, they didn't; they blamed Congress.
The same scenario could play out again if Mr. Reid and the
rest of the Senate Democrats if they aren't careful. After Thanksgiving there
are very few days that Congress will be in session until next year, and the
odds that the funding battle will be resolved are slim. I have little doubt
that there will ultimately be an 11th-hour showdown on war funding early next
year.
The question becomes whether the Senate Democrats are willing to go the distance and actually let the military's funding lapse, or if they will fold like they have on all the other major votes. On the one hand, they have to appease their anti-war base that helped put them in the majority, but on the other they run the risk of appearing to abandon the troops they have professed to support so long as they are in harm's way.
Mike Hahn (mhahn@badgerherald.com)
is a senior majoring in political science and history.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 7:26am):
To their detriment, the D's will indeed fold. The wimpiest, milquetoast majority. Good thing we voted for change. Stuck with the same ol you know what in some of the darker eight years that I can remember. January 2009 never sounded so good, but for what change?
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 8:28am):
Back in the '90s, the 4th estate succeeded in spinning the domestic budget stalemate as a Republican ploy to cut pork.
Don't expect the drive-by media elitists to frame this war budget impasse in terms of Democrat intransigence.
During our 1st War on Terrorism, President Jefferson famously demanded "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute."
Today's Defeatocrats want millions for porkbarrel... but not a cent for national security.
But don't expect our Marxist Media elites to frame it that way.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 10:28am):
All I know is that this war without end is KILLING the value of the dollar. Why would anyone gamble on America's economic stability when we have invested in a trillion dollar boondoggle?
Seniors, ask your employers to pay you in Euros. Otherwise, you'll be lighting up Benjamins to heat your tin-roof shack next winter.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 11:27am):
what happened to you mike? When you were young did Michael Dukakis steal your tricycle?
Justin Rabbach (November 20, 2007 @ 12:38pm):
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I've been getting sick of the idea that "when we have the Presidency we can make changes." I heard that same promise last November except it was, "when we have Congress we can make changes." Our government is set up so that more than one point of view can have a say in how things are run. Of course life would be easier if you had all control in all branches of government. It's the (supposed) compromise between competing views that makes America what it is. Perhaps filibusters aren't always the best way to go...
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 12:46pm):
With the (un)popularity of this President, I doubt Congress will have to worry about the blame game. However, the idea that Democrats have failed in their mandate because the war is still being fault, is a spurious one. There is no doubt that, with the Democratic majority in both houses, this war and administration is being managed differently--see: Rumsfield, Rove, Gonzalez, Pace etc.. We were all aware that the Democratic majority would not end the war as quickly as many in their camp want it, but it certainly is changing the way it is governed. This Congress will end this war long before the previous one would have.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 1:36pm):
"Marxist Media elites"? riiiight... and Alan Colmes is their intellectual leader.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 3:24pm):
1:36, I think we should probably get cool with the ideas of Marx, considering China owns our future.
Oliver Kiefer (November 20, 2007 @ 3:25pm):
I'll be the first to say that claiming Democrats won a mandate last November would be a gross overstatement. Did we win big? Absolutely. Taking thirty-two seats in the House and six in the Senate is a big win. The largest for the Democrats since I took my first breath of fresh air in 1987. But it obviously wasn't enough.
Justin talks above about how we should be working with the Republicans in Congress to try and find a compromise. Well, I think some would argue that a timetable for withdrawal is a pretty fair compromise. It's certainly not going to be very palatable for some on the right, and there will be those of us on the left who think that a year from now is still too long to stay.
The fact is that there are some issues we're not going to be able to compromise on. Is it unfortunate? Of course. But I think we could talk this issue through until we're blue in the face and Mr. Hahn and I would still not come to a consensus on what our plan should be. It's disagreement, it's part of making policy, and it's ok.
I'm disappointed that not enough Senate Republicans are willing to join the Democratic majority in calling for a timeline, but the pollster in me says that might break in our favor.
Up to six Republican Senators will retire at the end of this Congress, and a number of those seats are poised for Democratic pickups. We have 12 seats to defend, Republicans have 22. Top that off with a great field of Presidential candidates with unprecedented financial backing and I'd say 2008 will be another good year for Dems.
Twenty-Eight percent of Americans support the way President Bush is handling the War in Iraq, 68% oppose. Americans have repeatedly cited health care as one of their top priorities and Republicans have thus far failed to offer a plan to cover the 47 million uninsured in the United States today.
No, 2006 was not a mandate, but you should be careful of where you point your finger. Or at least be ready to face the consequences of your complacent inaction.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 3:28pm):
The Dummycrats are screwed.
If we lose Iraq it will be all their fault due to their efforts to force the USA to surrender. If we win in Iraq it will be in spite of their efforts to force the USA to surrender.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 4:58pm):
3:28, who exactly are we surrendering to? Saddam Hussein, Saddam's Ghost, Saddam's kids, Saddam's Kids' ghost?
Only a moron keeps beating a dead dictator.
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 6:29pm):
4:58
You have heard of al-Qaeda?
Perhaps you caught one of Osama bin Laden's latest videos?
Or some of his older tunes?
bin Laden's hatred and disdain for America was manifest while he lived in Sudan. There he told Al-Qaeda fighters-in-training "America appeared so mighty ... but it was actually weak and cowardly. Look at Vietnam, look at Lebanon. Whenever soldiers start coming home in body bags, Americans panic and retreat. Such a country needs only to be confronted with two or three sharp blows, then it will flee in panic, as it always has. ... It cannot stand against warriors of faith who do not fear death."
Anonymous (November 20, 2007 @ 7:37pm):
Oliver,
I would tend to agree with you about the war's low popularity, but Congress's approval rating is even lower (20%, and only 26% among Democrats). That doesn't help the Dems' cause in an election that should be favoring them much more than it appears to be.
Anonymous (November 21, 2007 @ 7:29am):
6:29, I think your pro-war stance would be better served for Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm not sure how cowardly al Qaeda's opinion of us would be if they were being actively eliminated. Osama's not in Iraq, so what's the point?
Anonymous (November 21, 2007 @ 9:04am):
6:29,
Generous estimates have 10% of the rebels currently fighting U.S. Troops affiliated with Al-Qaeda. The other 90% are fighting us because they consider the U.S. to be "invading" their country.
Everyone wants to get rid of Al-Qaeda, (except maybe Musharraf, but that's a whole different story) but if we're fighting 9 Iraqis for every 1 Al-Qaeda member, don't yoy think it's time to look for a more effective strategy? You can't exactly create a vibrant model of democracy by killing the brothers and fathers of the people you're intending to save.
Anonymous (November 21, 2007 @ 12:01pm):
"look for a more effective strategy?"
Like one where there are no attacks on US soil? But wait, there have been no attacks on US soil since 9-11. Maybe that's just a coinky-dink?
Anonymous (November 21, 2007 @ 3:15pm):
Why aren't we decapitating al Qaeda in Pakistan? Pakistan's isn't exactly the traditional definition of "friend", especially since they've been harboring Osama Bin Laden for 6 years.
Pakistan, if you're really our friend, it's time for a little more than lip service.
Anonymous (November 21, 2007 @ 10:19pm):
If after 9/11 we'd invaded Afghanistan and stopped there, then created a crash project for energy independence, it'd have cost less than Iraq, we'd already be well on the way there, the dollar wouldn't be in the tank, we wouldn't have $3/4/5/gallon gas, and the Republicans wouldn't be facing complete annihilation in the upcoming elections.
I'm a life-long paleo-conservative and have always voted Republican, but I'll vote for whoever adopts near-term energy independence as a national imperative - an honest to goodness Manhattan Project. Real independence, not pie-in-the-sky solar and conservation: Ten years maximum, Nuclear as the cornerstone (dump the environmental roadblocks), massive R&D on batteries and other portable power sources and storage systems, distribution systems - the works.
Then let's pull out and watch the Middle East implode. I'll buy the popcorn.
Anonymous (November 22, 2007 @ 9:12am):
I'm with the paleo-con about the rapid progress toward energy independence. I think both parties' candidates are blind if they think there is a more important issue; this issue underlies most of our current problems (trade imbalance, middle east instability, currency devaluation, etc).
-middle left
Anonymous (November 22, 2007 @ 8:45pm):
"Like one where there are no attacks on US soil?"
I like how luck is now an effective strategy against terrorism. Look at Katrina, she sure 9/11'd us better than any islamofascist. Homeland security still isn't ready.
Anonymous (November 23, 2007 @ 2:30pm):
Read SO #290. Divided we fall, united we stand.
Dems suck. Republicans suck even more... maybe this is why no third party can get elected into office.
Anonymous (November 24, 2007 @ 1:14pm):
The Democrats are committed to defeat in Iraq.
Now Democrats are breaking a campaign pledge from last year not to mess with funding of the war. They want Bush to surrender in Iraq.
American soldiers are far more competent than our senators. The soldiers have met three of the four objectives in the war. First, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Thank God.
Next, the dictator whose executions were on the Idi Amin-level is gone. Hanged.
Third, a defeated al-Qaida also has retreated from Iraq, drained and in tatters. It also lost the public relations war by chopping off the forefingers of smokers. I doubt it will be back.
All that is left is establishing a democracy, which is out of the hands of our soldiers.
Pakistan has been struggling with it since independence 60 years ago. India took 40 years. South Korea, 20 years.The United States took eight years to get its Constitution, but it was another 131 years until women could vote.
It is up to the Iraqis to find their way, but they deserve our help. Democrats need to live up to their name and support democracy.
http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/200711230075
Anonymous (November 25, 2007 @ 9:27am):
"The United States took eight years to get its Constitution"
How long would that have taken if they had cars, jets, telephones, and the internet?
Anonymous (November 25, 2007 @ 11:10am):
"if they had cars, jets, telephones, and the internet?"
Yup, because all that leads to less political problems - it's all sweetness and light once you have better communications, yeah, that's the ticket.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
