The Great Dem Cave In (?)

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Spavined Gelding]
Under the particular circumstances and with the risks inherent in cutting off funding the only valid course open to the Democrats is to string the President and his handlers enough rope to hang themselves and trust that they will effectively dangle themselves from some lamppost on Constitution Avenue before the next national election.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. This might not play well with the faithful who have been waiting with hopeful anticipation for the coming of the Great Green Arkleseizure (or perhaps dreading the time of the tissue), but I think its safe to say that the Dem’s stand a real chance to capture a large percentage of the center…and a LOT of unaligned voters. They may lose some folks in this thread…but I think they stand to gain a lot more traction come election time.

We ARE talking about the Bush administration after all, who has a genius for fucking up. The Dem’s already made clear that they think this was a bad idea and had legislation in the pipeline to change things…and a President who very vocally said he would veto it if they sent it his way. And, as we have all come to love and admire GW, we know that he is a stuborn asshole who would probably face a firing squad before he’d back down on this issue. When, after browbeating everyone into doing it his way things still don’t pan out as promissed (oh, say, around the time the next election cycle really heats up next year), I think a LOT of middle of the roaders and unaligned folks are going to be looking for something better…something different. And if the Dem’s are smart, they are already preparing something not only better and different, but…practical. Realistic. Achievable.

Instead of going down in flames on something that they just didn’t have the power to actually do more than make a defiant gesture. The NEXT time this comes up (and it will come up again), they should not attack the funding…they should attack the core documents and provisions that allow for US troops to be in Iraq in the first place…and they should get some concrete (and realistic) timetables stuffed down GW’s throat.

Have a plan. Show the American people that the Dem’s know wht the fuck they are doing and how to effect a positive change, backed up by real and realistic military analysis, logistics analysis, and acknowledging the political ramifications…and why we must do what we must do at this point. IOW, have all your ducks in a row and come out with a unified position detailing every aspect of the proposed change/withdrawl…down to the last trooper on the last plane, and how security for THAT will be handled.

This cutting off of funding was ill-thoughtout IMHO, with vague backup an detail. It was (obviously) a bluff…since the folks running the thing through HAD to know it wasn’t going to happen at this time.
Now…if the Dem’s do nothing from here on out but continue to kowtow to the President on this…well, at that point maybe its time to start really looking hard again at those 3rd party groups out there for you die hard Dem’s. Personally, I really and truely DO expect that this is but one move on the stones board…and I think that though it LOOKS like a bad move on the surface, Bush et al is about to get a large swath of their stones encircled in a few months time.

-XT

62

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Have a plan. Show the American people that the Dem’s know wht the fuck they are doing and how to effect a positive change, backed up by real and realistic military analysis, logistics analysis, and acknowledging the political ramifications…and why we must do what we must do at this point. IOW, have all your ducks in a row and come out with a unified position detailing every aspect of the proposed change/withdrawl…down to the last trooper on the last plane, and how security for THAT will be handled.
[/QUOTE]

…which Bush will blow out of the water with a few comments about Dem politicians thinking they know better than his generals, and which no one but the already converted will believe anyway.

63

[QUOTE=Princhester]
…which Bush will blow out of the water with a few comments about Dem politicians thinking they know better than his generals, and which no one but the already converted will believe anyway.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Leaving aside that such excuses are starting to wear thin by now, what the Dem’s have just done pretty much draws the teeth out of that political vector.

Besides, unless Bush works some of that Evil Dictator Magic (patent pending), he will become increasingly irrelevent next year as the focus is on who the NEXT president may be. And, as I say, without that evil magic…Bush ain’t going to be running next time. Who will give a fuck what he says?

-XT

64

Doesn’t matter whether it’s Bush or someone else. No one takes any notice of what detailed reports say. The only question is how it is summarised and spun, and the 'Pubbies have a better track record on that.

65

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Exactly. This might not play well with the faithful who have been waiting with hopeful anticipation for the coming of the Great Green Arkleseizure (or perhaps dreading the time of the tissue), but I think its safe to say that the Dem’s stand a real chance to capture a large percentage of the center…and a LOT of unaligned voters.
[/quote]
Or drive away the unaligned and center, who these days oppose the war and want us out, last I heard.

I really don’t understand how caving in to the Republicans is going to make anybody want to vote Democrat, regardless of their political position. If you are a Republican supporter, you’ll vote for the Republicans; if you are not, I’d expect this to drive people to vote for third parties or not at all. The “but if you do that the Republicans will win” argument doesn’t hold traction as long as the Democrats keep simply handing the Republicans what they want. One of the standard slams against the Democrats is that they “are no different than the Republicans, so why vote for them”, after all.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
When, after browbeating everyone into doing it his way things still don’t pan out as promissed (oh, say, around the time the next election cycle really heats up next year), I think a LOT of middle of the roaders and unaligned folks are going to be looking for something better…something different.
[/quote]
Which would be someone who didn’t cave in. Caving in is what the Democrats have been doing for years; it’s not “something better…something different”.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
The NEXT time this comes up (and it will come up again), they should not attack the funding…they should attack the core documents and provisions that allow for US troops to be in Iraq in the first place…and they should get some concrete (and realistic) timetables stuffed down GW’s throat.
[/quote]
If they don’t have the power now, what makes you think they’ll have the power ever ? No. The next time this come up they’ll do what they just did, what they always do; cave in.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Now…if the Dem’s do nothing from here on out but continue to kowtow to the President on this…well, at that point maybe its time to start really looking hard again at those 3rd party groups out there for you die hard Dem’s. Personally, I really and truely DO expect that this is but one move on the stones board…and I think that though it LOOKS like a bad move on the surface, Bush et al is about to get a large swath of their stones encircled in a few months time.
[/QUOTE]
Now here’s my view; this is nothing more and nothing less than a victory for Bush, not some clever plan by the Democrats. They look weak because they are weak; they cave in because they are just that spineless. Bush will drag things out until the next election, and lay all the blame on the next President; if it’s a Democrat it’ll probably even work.

Although I think it’s less likely to be a Democrat after this; this alienates the base, alienates the moderates, and encourages the opposition.

66

When governments fail, it’s up to the people to put pressure on them to do right. Recall how LBJ was tormented by the Vietnam war protesters outside the White House. This I believe changed the man and was one of the factors leading to his withdrawal from the 1968 race. There should be mass demonstrations in Washington. Pack the mall and then don’t leave. Surround the White House and voice the call to end this war. The 2008 presidential contenders should talk of little else and the crowds need to keep raising the question: how are you going to end this war?

As long as the politicians think that the people will tolerate it, they’ll continue to triangulate the approach that presents the least risk to them politically. It’s up to the people to make continued support for the war become political suicide.

67

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]

What do you realistically propose?
[/QUOTE]
I vote for yellow cake.

68

I love yellow cake. With chocolate frosting. And sprinkles!

-XT

69

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
When governments fail, it’s up to the people to put pressure on them to do right. Recall how LBJ was tormented by the Vietnam war protesters outside the White House. This I believe changed the man and was one of the factors leading to his withdrawal from the 1968 race. There should be mass demonstrations in Washington. Pack the mall and then don’t leave. Surround the White House and voice the call to end this war.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but remember that we had a draft back then, and US casualty rates were something like 10x what they are in Iraq. Big difference. And what race is Bush going to withdraw from?

I still think the Dems should decouple action to bring the troops home from efforts to fund them. Pass a bill rescinding the AUMF at some date in the (not too distant) future, and most Americans will be fully supportive. Deal with the funding issue after the war authorization is revoked.

70

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Yeah, but remember that we had a draft back then, and US casualty rates were something like 10x what they are in Iraq. Big difference. And what race is Bush going to withdraw from?
[/QUOTE]

True enough. But there is sort of a back door draft of indefinite extensions of NG unit members. If I was the spouse of a National Guardsman going for the third tour, I’d be spitting nails.

Bush of course isn’t running- but I think he needs to think in terms of history and of what the political consequences of his actions are. The 2006 elections should have been the wake up call but it doesn’t seem to have worked that way.

71

He is thinking in terms of history, just not in a responsible way. He still harbors an absolute faith that he did the right thing and will be vindicated, just as Truman was. The problem isn’t getting him to put country and history and humanity instead of self, it’s getting him to realize he isn’t doing that already.

Yellow cake is best when baked in aluminum tubes.

72

My Representative voted against the bill.

There’s only one way to end this war, and that is to impeach the president and vice president. There is ample evidence of their lawbreaking already. Probe and probe and probe some more, gather the evidence and impeach the motherfucker already.

Dust off and nuke the neocons from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

73

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I still think the Dems should decouple action to bring the troops home from efforts to fund them. Pass a bill rescinding the AUMF at some date in the (not too distant) future, and most Americans will be fully supportive. Deal with the funding issue after the war authorization is revoked.
[/QUOTE]

Which authorization should they revoke, the 2002 one or the 2001 one?

74

[QUOTE=elucidator]
If you have any doubts as to the title reference, kindly bugger off. This is not for you.

The parenthetical question mark affords the opportunity for the opinion that such is not the case, that some brilliant tactical maneuver is afoot, or somesuch.

The question posed is, in essence, WTF? I took the liberty of Pitting this thread in the sure knowledge that tempers will fray, mine already has. Calm and civil discourse is not thereby discouraged, merely regarded as unlikely.

So, ladies and gentlething, pals and gals…what the fuck?
[/QUOTE]

Y’all are missing the point.

Troops in Iraq next fall = Democratic victory.

Actually defunding the troops in the middle of a war = political suicide.

The only way the Reps can win next year is by nominating an anti-war candidate, or by actually bringing the troops home within a year.

75

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Which authorization should they revoke, the 2002 one or the 2001 one?
[/QUOTE]

  1. But you do bring up a good point, and I’ve mentioned this several times in other debates. The 2001 AUMF is quite broad and could easily be construed as giving Bush the authority to continue fighting in Iraq. Perhaps that is why he has recently been focusing on connections between ObL and what is called “al Qaeda in Iraq”-- just in case Congress does rescind the 2002 AUMF.

Still, the first step in ending the war in Iraq should be to revoke the authorization for that war. Revoke in completely-- do not do some piecemeal thing like some Dems propose. Once it has been revoked, they can negotiate with the WH over what authorization he will be given to continue (limited) actions in Iraq over time.

If Bush does attempt to claim that the 2001 AUMF authorizes him to fight in Iraq, that will be a hard sell for the American people, and will make even more people back away from support.

Maybe that plan won’t work, but I think it has a better chance than trying to squeeze off funds as the first step.

76

[QUOTE=LinusK]
Y’all are missing the point.
[/quote]
*Are * we now? :dubious:

As if that matters, compared to ending the war? Not everyone puts party ahead of country, ya know.

Beltway wisdom (an oxymoron). The Merkin Pipple, as shown by all recent polls, say otherwise.

True, except they don’t have one, and can’t. IOW they’re fucked anyway, might as well do the right thing on the way out. But, come to think of it, they won’t do that, either.

77

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
*Are * we now? :dubious:

As if that matters, compared to ending the war?
[/quote]

We can’t end the war. The only issue is whether we end our involvement in it.

No, just Republicans. And there’s nothing wrong with being a noble loser. Except then you can’t do anything, like, for example, bringing the troops home from Iraq.

If the Dems actually stopped payment for things like food, and medicine, and ammo for Our Troops… the Reps would be dancing (in private) for joy.

In public, they’d be on TV asking the Am People for donations, so those who are sacrificing their lives for Our Freedom, could eat, and defend themselves from Terrorists.

Yes, the Reps are in a box, and they know it. And I don’t see how even Karl Rove can get them out of it. I’m sure they’re desperately hoping the Dems will somehow do it for them.

78

[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
As if that matters, compared to ending the war? Not everyone puts party ahead of country, ya know.

[/QUOTE]

That’s not necessarily it. I’ll be happy to blame the Dems for caving - it’s what they have done, after all.

The point, though, is that a Democratic victory in 2008 will allow time and sufficient power to reverse the domestic abuses of power over the last 6 (and by then, 8) years of Bush Rule.

Now, whether or not the Democrats will actually do things like undo the PATRIOT act or use that majority to try to create a “Permanent Democratic Majority” is something only time will tell.

-Joe

79

[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
My Representative voted against the bill.

There’s only one way to end this war, and that is to impeach the president and vice president. There is ample evidence of their lawbreaking already. Probe and probe and probe some more, gather the evidence and impeach the motherfucker already.

[/QUOTE]

Do you believe there is enough evidence of their lawbreaking to obtain a guilty verdict in a criminal trial?

80

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Do you believe there is enough evidence of their lawbreaking to obtain a guilty verdict in a criminal trial?
[/QUOTE]

I think it was clear that the poster was referring to an impeachment and a trial in the Senate. In that case, I’d say the answer is “no”, but only because there aren’t enough Republicans who would cross party lines to vote “guilty” in the trial. I think the actual impeachment vote in the House would pass, but that still wouldn’t get Bush out of office.