Bipartisanship is alive, if not well, in DC

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Despite claims from many, including some current candidates for president, gridlock and antagonism are not currently problematic in DC. Rather, bipartisanship typifies how our present government works.

Oftentimes these days, one hears a desire for a “unity” ticket, with some combination of “moderates” like Bloomberg and someone equally unlikely to be desirable as a candidate in his or her own right. Alternatively, one hears a candidate (mostly a Democrat) suggesting that bipartisanship is needed in DC. Perhaps if the real problem with our government was that nothing was happening because of a pitched battle between the two parties, with neither finding any accord with the other, such a solution would make sense.

However, as anyone who pays even the slightest attention to what actually happens in congress and in DC could observe, bipartisanship occurs regularly. It is achieved by the Democrats willfully capitulating to the Republicans on nearly every substantive issue imaginable (see link below).

How will any Democrat who espouses unity and bipartisanship change this situation? Will he or she somehow find more or different ways to agree to with the Republicans? Will he or she somehow convince a minority opposition party with a long and well-established track record of marching in lockstep to somehow be nice sometimes? (On a related note, how do the celebrated Republican mavericks and moderates ever behave any differently than the rest of the party across the range of significant legislative issues?)

How will the views of Americans who differ from the positions of the Republicans (very often on these matters the majority of Americans) be represented adequately by this unity and bipartisanship?

On the contrary, doesn’t the current circumstance call for strong partisan leadership to stand up for alternative positions to those currently fisted through by the Republicans so that opposing progressive, often majority, views are reasonably represented? Weren’t the 2006 elections supposed to suggest that people wanted change, opposition and an alternative course for our government?

I suggest that calls for bipartisanship are at best naïve, and at worst a calculated call for more Democratic foot grabbing (like that scene in Body Heat, only instead of Kathleen Turner, it’s Harry Reid’s hand clutching the blankets with his face jammed in the pillow). I suggest that what is really needed is a vigorous representation and defense of opposing policy positions.

As Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/index.html) noted today (see linked article for evidence of “bipartisanship”):
But more importantly, "bipartisanship" is already rampant in Washington, not rare. And, in almost every significant case, what "bipartisanship" means in Washington is that enough Democrats join with all of the Republicans to endorse and enact into law Republican policies, with which most Democratic voters disagree. That's how so-called "bipartisanship" manifests in almost every case.
[…]
On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

Leaving aside how shallow and, shall we say, unserious is this endless chirping for more "bipartisanship" -- as though it's a magic feel-good formula for resolving actual policy differences -- it's hard to imagine how there could possibly be any more "bipartisanship" in Washington even if that were the only goal. Other than formally disbanding as a party -- or granting a permanent proxy of their collective vote to Mitch McConnell -- how could Congressional Democrats possibly be more accommodating than they already are?

[John Mace]

Unless you change the Senate floor rules, you can't govern that way. The best a Democratic president could do would be to veto every bill that isn't "progressive". That would be a great way to ensure a Republican win in '12.

I suggest that calls for bipartisanship are at best naïve, and at worst a calculated call for more Democratic foot grabbing (like that scene in Body Heat, only instead of Kathleen Turner, it’s Harry Reid’s hand clutching the blankets with his face jammed in the pillow). I suggest that what is really needed is a vigorous representation and defense of opposing policy positions.
Personally, I prefer the scene where William Hurt throws the chair through the window and then does her on the floor.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Unless you change the Senate floor rules, you can't govern that way. The best a Democratic president could do would be to veto every bill that isn't "progressive". That would be a great way to ensure a Republican win in '12.Really? How would that jibe with the election results of 2006? It sure hasn't hurt Bush to veto or threaten to veto every bill that is hardcore conservative.

[Bricker]

So, in 2006, the Democrats' message was, in essence: elect us, and we'll change things in DC.

Now you're saying... what? "Just kidding, they were! Those lovable scamps!"

[Ravenman]

This is just a new flavor of the tired political argument of taking a buzzword and redefining it to suit one's gripe of the moment. Like, how if people were really "pro-life," they'd oppose the death penalty.

What the Democrats are evincing now isn't bipartisanship by any means, despite that article. The Democrats are simply being beaten on votes and issues for a number of reasons: primarily because their majority in Congress is so thin, but also because Democrats can't agree among ourselves if we should be dealing with Republicans at all.

One concrete example: Iraq. Democrats had a choice between confronting Bush and trying to require a withdrawal of troops from Iraq; or taking incremental steps to gain the support of Republicans who were dissatisfied with the war. The risk of the former course was that Dems wouldn't have the votes to pass such a plan and then be forced to vote for funds for the troops whom they couldn't require be withdrawn. The risk of the latter course was that the strongest anti-war Dems could not accept anything but immediate withdrawal.

Essentially, the Democrats chose to confront Bush on Iraq with no way of winning the battle with the White House That also meant not being willing to work with Republicans who were uneasy with forcing a withdrawal so quickly. So the Dems rolled the dice and hoped for a win, but lost. That isn't bipartisanship. There was no plan to work with differently-minded people to convince them of their plan.

Just because you lose on an issue doesn't mean you're being bipartisan. Caving is not the same as compromise. Moreover, if you twist the term "bipartisan" so far as the author did, then one would have to admit that Bush must be one of the most bipartisan presidents in history. Does anyone believe that? Is there a single thinking person in the US who believes that Bush really has been a uniter, not a divider?

Good article here (http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0057.html) on the choice of congressional leaders whether to be bipartisan and seek compromise or be partisan and seek confrontation. (And, of course, it goes without saying that Bush has made no effort to be bipartisan on any major issue.)

[John Mace]

Really? How would that jibe with the election results of 2006? It sure hasn't hurt Bush to veto or threaten to veto every bill that is hardcore conservative.
I'm not following you. Bush's approval rating is one of the lowest ever. Most of that is over Iraq, but some is probably from his vetoes of embryonic stem cell research funding and the SCHP program-- both of which are very popular programs among Americans.

The 2006 election was mostly a referendum on Iraq, though, with a bit of nod towards populist economic positions. So, the Dems got a raise in the minimum wage, but failed to define an Iraq bill that could actually get through Congress. Besides, I never thought they had a chance of changing the president's Iraq policy-- that's almost impossible to do.

[Captain Amazing]

I'm not following you. Bush's approval rating is one of the lowest ever. Most of that is over Iraq, but some is probably from his vetoes of embryonic stem cell research funding and the SCHP program-- both of which are very popular programs among Americans.

And one of which (the SCHIP program), at least, was passed originally in a bipartisan fashion, with both Democrats and a lot of Republicans supporting it...enough Republicans in the Senate, at least, that it could withstand a veto there.

True bipartisanship isn't one side folding and giving the other what they want. It's both sides willing to compromise so that the concerns of both the Democrats and the Republicans on an issue are met.

[Shodan]

On the contrary, doesn’t the current circumstance call for strong partisan leadership to stand up for alternative positions to those currently fisted through by the Republicans so that opposing progressive, often majority, views are reasonably represented? Weren’t the 2006 elections supposed to suggest that people wanted change, opposition and an alternative course for our government? Well, OK. You Dems have control of both houses, and a reasonable chance at the White House next year. So how about some of those changes you promised?

Dig in your heels. Go for it. One of the things you promised was "pay as you go". All spending bills originate in the House, controlled by Democrats. So balance the budget already. Republicans did it in two years, and they had a much better politician to contend with in the White House.

Medicare was a Democratic idea originally. It's running out of money. OK, fix it.

I don't remember the Republicans in 1995 complaining that they couldn't get anything they promised done because they were being too "bipartisan". What the fuck is wrong with Pelosi that wasn't wrong with Gingrich? (OK, Gingrich is better looking. But apart from that.)

The biggest partisan issue is Iraq. Ravenman is right - Democrats don't get to blame their lack of party unity or absence of ideas on the Republicans. If you think it is such a bad idea to be there, then let's see a plan for pulling out.

The Republicans in 1994 ran on a platform of change. The only difference is, they actually delivered. The Dems try the same idea in 2006, and all they can do is whine about their failures.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Well, OK. You Dems have control of both houses, and a reasonable chance at the White House next year. So how about some of those changes you promised?

Dig in your heels. Go for it. One of the things you promised was "pay as you go". All spending bills originate in the House, controlled by Democrats. So balance the budget already. Republicans did it in two years, and they had a much better politician to contend with in the White House.

Medicare was a Democratic idea originally. It's running out of money. OK, fix it.

I don't remember the Republicans in 1995 complaining that they couldn't get anything they promised done because they were being too "bipartisan". What the fuck is wrong with Pelosi that wasn't wrong with Gingrich? (OK, Gingrich is better looking. But apart from that.)

The biggest partisan issue is Iraq. Ravenman is right - Democrats don't get to blame their lack of party unity or absence of ideas on the Republicans. If you think it is such a bad idea to be there, then let's see a plan for pulling out.

The Republicans in 1994 ran on a platform of change. The only difference is, they actually delivered. The Dems try the same idea in 2006, and all they can do is whine about their failures.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Regards,
ShodanIt sounds as if you think you are disagreeing with me. You are not.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

So, in 2006, the Democrats' message was, in essence: elect us, and we'll change things in DC.

Now you're saying... what? "Just kidding, they were! Those lovable scamps!"Me? Where am I saying that? Substituting Harry Reid into an anal sex scene wasn't clear enough about how I feel the Democrats have performed?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

This is just a new flavor of the tired political argument of taking a buzzword and redefining it to suit one's gripe of the moment. Like, how if people were really "pro-life," they'd oppose the death penalty.

What the Democrats are evincing now isn't bipartisanship by any means, despite that article. The Democrats are simply being beaten on votes and issues for a number of reasons: primarily because their majority in Congress is so thin, but also because Democrats can't agree among ourselves if we should be dealing with Republicans at all.Not exactly. Two points: First, the Democrats are simply letting themselves be beaten. The only time Reid has challenged a filibuster is when it came from another Democrat. Otherwise, he has not required the Republicans to do any work at all to stymie any Democratic interest. It has taken one person to make a bold stand to cause any trouble with Bush's wiretapping bill. Hell, even the libertarians have been pretty silent on what should be a grave concern of theirs.

Secondly, this is a bitter use of the word "bipartisanship," but functionally, it has been the case that just enough Democrats vote in favor of some Republican issue or another. How much of their capitulation is hidden behind agreements that one or another member will "take the fall" on a given bill so that others can claim cover in the eyes of their constituents.

But in reality, the issue is for those who suggest that bipartisanship would be a solution in Washington at present. Can you answer how it would be a solution, particularly when called for by a Democrat? What would some change in bipartisanship look like? Does it sound likely to happen when motivated by a Democrat?Just because you lose on an issue doesn't mean you're being bipartisan. Caving is not the same as compromise. Moreover, if you twist the term "bipartisan" so far as the author did, then one would have to admit that Bush must be one of the most bipartisan presidents in history. Does anyone believe that? Is there a single thinking person in the US who believes that Bush really has been a uniter, not a divider?When has Bush had to act in a bipartisan fashion. Why should he if no one makes him?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I'm not following you. Bush's approval rating is one of the lowest ever. Most of that is over Iraq, but some is probably from his vetoes of embryonic stem cell research funding and the SCHP program-- both of which are very popular programs among Americans.I don't know how much comes from those two particular issues, but your point is taken. You suggested however that acting in a partisan fashion would be deadly for a Democratic president. Bush was no different during his first term, but was re-elected in 2004, and has never suffered in terms of getting what he wants. Why should it be particulary damaging for a Democrat to act in a partisan fashion, especially when it likely won't involve invading another country and generally being on the side of majority American opinion on most issues?

[Ravenman]

Not exactly. Two points: First, the Democrats are simply letting themselves be beaten. The only time Reid has challenged a filibuster is when it came from another Democrat. Otherwise, he has not required the Republicans to do any work at all to stymie any Democratic interest. I agree with you completely about Reid. I don't agree that Democrats are letting themselves be beaten. For example, there's no way for the Democrats to force a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. It's simply not possible at this point.
How much of their capitulation is hidden behind agreements that one or another member will "take the fall" on a given bill so that others can claim cover in the eyes of their constituents. Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy theory?
Secondly, this is a bitter use of the word "bipartisanship," but functionally, it has been the case that just enough Democrats vote in favor of some Republican issue or another. . . . But in reality, the issue is for those who suggest that bipartisanship would be a solution in Washington at present. Can you answer how it would be a solution, particularly when called for by a Democrat? What would some change in bipartisanship look like? Does it sound likely to happen when motivated by a Democrat? When has Bush had to act in a bipartisan fashion. Why should he if no one makes him?The argument advanced here seems to be switching between two interpretations of the word bipartisan.

On one hand, bipartisanship can mean people of two parties supporting a particular proposal. Strictly speaking, Democrats may be this kind of bipartisan if they support funding for the troops, and Bush is bipartisan because some of his initiatives attract Democratic support. This is the kind of bipartisanship referred to in the article, and I think it's a pretty hollow definition.

The other kind of bipartisanship is marked by a spirit of cooperation and compromise. As you said, Bush has never fulfilled this type of bipartisanship. I don't think that the Democratic Congress has really embraced this kind of bipartisanship. But this is the kind of bipartisanship that folks like Obama seem to be talking about. This means that both sides would engage each other to produce new policies that represent a compromise between what either would really want.

It would ideally mean that accommodations are made to political opponents in order to achieve results rather than opposition. For example, in the last year there may have been an opportunity to enact some type of modest changes to the mission in Iraq (like forcing Iraqis to take more responsibility for current US-led missions) that would have gained Republican support, rather than trying to insist on efforts to withdraw troops quickly.

What about a real example, the stimulus package? For once, Democrats and Republicans seem to be working together on something. And if the cooperation continues, it looks like the package could be signed into law pretty quickly. And the bipartisanship in the House involved Democrats giving up a few of their priorities, Republicans giving up a few of theirs, all in the name of getting a compromise package together that could be enacted quickly. One can disagree with the substance of the package, but the process has been admirable.

[RTFirefly]

I agree with you completely about Reid. I don't agree that Democrats are letting themselves be beaten. For example, there's no way for the Democrats to force a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. It's simply not possible at this point. Maybe not now, after the Dems have already passed a passel of Iraq funding bills. But a year ago, all they'd had to do was not fund the war. No supermajority would be needed to pass nothing, after all.

[Ravenman]

Maybe not now, after the Dems have already passed a passel of Iraq funding bills. But a year ago, all they'd had to do was not fund the war. Not passing any funding the war means that 160,000 troops would be left in Iraq with no way to get home. I'm puzzled why some of my anti-war colleagues see that as a good alternative.

[Bricker]

Me? Where am I saying that? Substituting Harry Reid into an anal sex scene wasn't clear enough about how I feel the Democrats have performed?

Ahhh... got it.

Youy're feeling the same conundrum I feel about the death penalty: can't find a single Republican to oppose it. Grit my teeth and look to the Dems for hope, and.... zippy.

This is a crap electroate to be a part of if you're anti-DP.

[RTFirefly]

Not passing any funding the war means that 160,000 troops would be left in Iraq with no way to get home. I'm puzzled why some of my anti-war colleagues see that as a good alternative.First of all, I thought you were asking what was possible, rather than what was wise, or prudent, or politically feasible, or whatever.

Second, I thought the notion that a funding cutoff would leave American troops stranded in the Iraqi desert had long ago been debunked as the political equivalent of an urban legend.

I suppose it could be true, if the Bush Administration chose to make it so, by playing a game of chicken where they spent down every available transferable dollar in the DoD budget without bringing any troops home.

But if you recall the debate from last spring, even the Bush Administration acknowledged that by shifting money around, they could fund the war for a few months after funding technically ran out, so there's no question that resources would have been available.

[RTFirefly]

What about a real example, the stimulus package? For once, Democrats and Republicans seem to be working together on something. And if the cooperation continues, it looks like the package could be signed into law pretty quickly. And the bipartisanship in the House involved Democrats giving up a few of their priorities, Republicans giving up a few of theirs, all in the name of getting a compromise package together that could be enacted quickly. One can disagree with the substance of the package, but the process has been admirable. I disagree on a couple of grounds.

First is that I don't find the process admirable.

For one thing, the negotiations between the House Dems and the White House apparently didn't include the Senate. A process shortcut that doesn't get buy-in from key players inevitably runs the risk of fatal disagreements from those players. Going "he and I have made a deal, so you'd better go along with it, even though you weren't at the table" is no way to get something done.

The second thing is, in the wake of those negotiations, the House passed the stimulus package too fast for anyone to notice whether it was likely to accomplish its intended purpose.

The economists I read agree that most of the 'stimulus' money will have little if any effect as stimulus. Much of that 'stimulus' is just plain pork, and even a lot of the non-pork won't have any stimulus effect. A process that fails to allow for any analysis, comment, or reflection, as this one did, is a bad process.

Unless, of course, the object is simply to pass something, regardless of whether the legislation accomplishes its intended purpose.

[Ravenman]

First of all, I thought you were asking what was possible, rather than what was wise, or prudent, or politically feasible, or whatever.I'm proceeding along the lines that politics is the art of the possible.

Second, I thought the notion that a funding cutoff would leave American troops stranded in the Iraqi desert had long ago been debunked as the political equivalent of an urban legend.

I suppose it could be true, if the Bush Administration chose to make it so, by playing a game of chicken where they spent down every available transferable dollar in the DoD budget without bringing any troops home.

But if you recall the debate from last spring, even the Bush Administration acknowledged that by shifting money around, they could fund the war for a few months after funding technically ran out, so there's no question that resources would have been available.The point is that very few Americans want to see pictures of the troops in Iraq without fuel, electricity, contracotr support for communications and food, and so forth. Who will get the blame? Congress for not providing the funds. There was a poll about a year ago about how many Americans want to see a total cutoff of funds for Iraq. I can look it up if you wish, but the number was in the range of about 12%.

So, most people would be outraged that our troops would be left sitting out in the desert without a pot to poop in. The idea that the White House would throw up their hands, surrender, and agree to withdraw the troops at the same time the American people get fanatically angry about how the government is refusing to fund the welfare of deployed servicemembers is just liberal fantasy. Congress would get the blame, I have no doubt.

In any case, transferring enough funds to cover probably upwards of $12, 15, or even $20 billion to stage a hasty withdrawal over the course of about three months or more would require shutdowns of domestic bases and the furlough of thousands of civilian workers. It would not be pretty.

[squeegee]

So, most people would be outraged that our troops would be left sitting out in the desert without a pot to poop in [...] Congress would get the blame, I have no doubt.Setting aside the "blame" part of your comments, congress has cut off funding for a war before, and it didn't work out the way you've projected. The troops came home, poop, pot and all. Look it up.

[Ravenman]

Setting aside the "blame" part of your comments, congress has cut off funding for a war before, and it didn't work out the way you've projected. The troops came home, poop, pot and all. Look it up.Actually, Congress has done it twice that I can think of right off the top of my head. First, in Vietnam, in 1973: that was after Nixon decided to withdraw troops, and after the Paris Peace Accords were signed. Second, in Somalia, after the Black Hawk Down incident, Clinton began to withdraw troops. Then Congress passed an amendment which put severe restrictions on the use of funds for military operations.

There are also cases of limiting funds to the military for specific purposes, like prohibiting funds for putting US troops in Cambodia in 1970, or prohibiting covert activities in Nicaragua in (IIRC 1984). Neither of those situations is really comparable to Iraq at this time.

The more salient point is that each of those funding restrictions were enacted into law with the approval of the President. I can name a whole slew of cases where Congress proposed cutting off funds for a military operation and that effort was not successful due to opposition from the White House. Would you like to hear about those?

If you have a case where (a) Congress refused to act to provide money for a military operation, (b) the President opposed the position of Congress, and (c) the position of Congress won out, let me know about it, because I'm utterly unaware of such a thing happening in our history.

So, what is the example you were thinking of?

[squeegee]

Ravenman, and I mean no (well, little) disrespect, but your description was essentially that Congress cutting off funding would lead to some apocalyptic "stranding the troops" scenario. No preconditions required.

If you want to now load that up with preconditions ("oh, Congress really meant it"), that's your lookout, but your rhetoric now does not match your previous post, and is frankly dishonest and, well, sniveling. Please man up, stop quoting scripture, and argue honestly.

[squeegee]

Sigh, I regret the "sniveling" part of my comments above; that was over the top and I withdraw the comment.

[Shayna]

However, as anyone who pays even the slightest attention to what actually happens in congress and in DC could observe, bipartisanship occurs regularly. It is achieved by the Democrats willfully capitulating to the Republicans on nearly every substantive issue imaginable (see link below).

How will any Democrat who espouses unity and bipartisanship change this situation? Will he or she somehow find more or different ways to agree to with the Republicans? Will he or she somehow convince a minority opposition party with a long and well-established track record of marching in lockstep to somehow be nice sometimes? Well, I guess that depends on who you ask. If you were to ask George Lakoff (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html), he'd tell you This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major "issues" dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship." I think that's a good distinction.

[marshmallow]

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

My head just exploded.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I think that's a good distinction.Really? So what are the "central American values" that would generate a bipartisan solution on warrantless wiretapping, for example?

What are these "central American values" period?

[Ravenman]

Ravenman, and I mean no (well, little) disrespect, but your description was essentially that Congress cutting off funding would lead to some apocalyptic "stranding the troops" scenario. No preconditions required.

If you want to now load that up with preconditions ("oh, Congress really meant it"), that's your lookout, but your rhetoric now does not match your previous post, and is frankly dishonest and, well, sniveling. Please man up, stop quoting scripture, and argue honestly.I don't understand what you're saying, especially the "preconditions" or the "Congress really meant it" part. You said Congress has cut off funds before, but I pointed out that each time it has happened it has been with the assent of the White House, and in every case I'm aware of, the President had already made the decision to withdraw troops before funds were cut off. That is not the case with Iraq.

If your argument is that Congress can simply cut off funds for Iraq and the troops will automatically come home because it has been done before, then that claim must be subject to scrutiny. As it happens, the claim doesn't even pass the most casual analysis.

As far as dishonesty, it would be dishonest of me to admit I'm wrong when I scratch the surface of your claim to expose that your argument is superficial and not historically accurate.

Now, if you have an example of a case where the Congress forced the withdrawal of troops from some war over the objections of the President by using the power of the purse, I don't claim omnipotent knowledge of how every war in American history has ended. It could be that there are examples of this, but I am not aware of them. You have your opportunity to prove your case, but don't someone not to challenge the substance of your claim.

Otherwise, it just looks like you are only offering a superficial claim that you can't support under even the slightest degree of scrutiny, and instead accuse me of some misdeed. That's not cricket.

(And no worries about the "sniveling" comment, no harm done.)

[squeegee]

Ravenman, I have time for just a quick comment, but can check in later in detail.

Briefly your distinction still strikes me as a "true scottsman" approach, winnowing out every example that doesn't fit somehow, which in your view includes every example. I still maintain that a) funding has been cut for wars by legislators (yes, with agreement by the executive. So what?) and b) troops were indeed not stranded in the field. The apocalyptic scenario you outline above (poop and pots and all that) strikes me as silly and stretches things far beyond the boundaries of likelyhood.

[Fear Itself]

Well, OK. You Dems have control of both houses, and a reasonable chance at the White House next year. So how about some of those changes you promised? A little civics lesson for you; it takes 60 votes to control the senate. We will control it next year.

[Ravenman]

Ravenman, I have time for just a quick comment, but can check in later in detail. I see where you're coming from, I strongly disagree, but maybe we ought to take this conversation elsewhere, as it is kind of a hijack from the main point of the thread.

[RTFirefly]

I'm proceeding along the lines that politics is the art of the possible. That's reasonable.

In the interest of clarity, though, it's probably not a bad idea to distinguish between what is technically possible and what is politically feasible. There can be a lot of disagreement about the latter, after all.

The point is that very few Americans want to see pictures of the troops in Iraq without fuel, electricity, contracotr support for communications and food, and so forth. Who will get the blame? Congress for not providing the funds. There was a poll about a year ago about how many Americans want to see a total cutoff of funds for Iraq. I can look it up if you wish, but the number was in the range of about 12%. And this is where politics as the art of the possible comes in. What those polls also showed was that the vast majority of Americans wanted us out, presumably in some sort of orderly withdrawal, over the following year or two.

It's the job of the politicians opposing the Administration to get the message across to the American people that the President won't let that 1-2 year orderly withdrawal happen - so the choices are to (a) remain in Iraq until sometime in the next Administration, or (b) force the President's hand via a funding cutoff.

After they had gotten that message through to the American people (which would have probably taken an organized effort on the Dems' part, lasting a number of weeks), they could have seen which option the American people preferred, and acted accordingly.

Maybe the funding cutoff would have been politically possible, or maybe not - but until the real nature of the choice was conveyed to the public, there was no way of knowing.