Dec 12 2007
Surrendercrats Lose On Iraq Funding Again
While the Democrats keep pushing for a US defeat IN Iraq they have succeeded in stringing together a year long set of defeats ON Iraq. The Dems have raised the white flag again – as they must before families across this nation sit around the table for Christmas meals and pray for our troops in harms way, knowing in the back of their minds the Dems left them high and dry and without funding:
Democratic leaders said Wednesday that they would keep total spending at the strict $933 billion limit set by the White House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also abandoned a proposal she supported Tuesday to eliminate lawmakers’ earmarks from spending bills after she faced stiff opposition from powerful fellow Democrats.
Pelosi told the Democratic chairmen of the House Appropriations subcommittees, the so-called cardinals, that earmarks would stay in the omnibus and that Democratic leaders would accede to cut spending to levels demanded by Bush to save 11 spending bills from a veto, said sources familiar with a meeting that took place in Pelosi’s office early Wednesday morning.The Democratic cardinals rebelled against a plan suggested by Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to save $9.5 billion by slashing earmarks. Obey hoped to use the money to minimize cuts to domestic programs important to Democrats.
…
One senior House appropriator said that plan means it will be left to the Senate to decide how to package war funds in the omnibus. As lawmakers scramble to recess before Christmas, there will be pressure to add war funds without restrictions on Bush’s ability to conduct the war. The president has vowed to veto any effort to withdraw troops from Iraq or impose other constraints.
House Democrats may face the difficult proposition of considering a spending package that includes unfettered war monies. Pelosi said she would vote against such a bill but did not say she would prevent it from coming to the floor, revealing a large measure of pragmatism as the first session of the 110th Congress reaches its final days.
The Dems are screwed for 2008. If they toe the line with their rabid far left base they lose the centrist independents they took from the GOP in 2006, relegating them to an isolated minority status. If they capitulate they leave open the opportunity to pick up centrists but lose their base. The fact is their future ability to cobble governing coalitions remains with the centrists. I doubt they can keep many of them, but they are at least acknowledging they requires a coalition to govern.
Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they’re closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.
The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.
Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership’s failure to push back on Bush’s Iraq policy.
Clearly the idea of a “Merry Scrooge You” to the troops was a bad idea from the start, and now it is just coming clear how really, really bad it was.
Update: More here on the imploding Democrat Congress.
A sample of what is being said on the far left
From what I understand, Pelosi is backing down because Reid wouldn’t go along with Obey’s plan to stand firm. In the Senate, I think Chris Dodd is the obvious choice to replace Reid, given that Dodd has demonstrated leadership and once lost a majority leader campaign by a single vote. Then again, I have no idea how to help engineer a replacement of Congressional leadership. I also don’t know who would do a better job in the House than Pelosi.
If the leadership we have isn’t getting the job done, we need to think about how to get better leadership. Perhaps we could even change leadership behavior without actually replacing the leaders. I don’t really know, but I do know that what we are doing right now isn’t working.
Merlin, your post makes it bluntly clear that they still do not understand the mechanics. Replacing Reid and Pelosi still won’t do the job. Too bad that Congress doesn’t have one more year after 2008 to prove these guys wrong. The Senate will still not have the votes to override Bush’s veto.
As for next year, Congress would probably wait until after the November elections to decide the 2009 fiscal budget. If the Democrats lose big time, then they will capitulate again. If they win big time, what will the Republicans do then?
My gut feeling is that the tide is turning in the GOP’s favor. And that their odds of winning back the majority and/or the WH are looking better.
But then on the other hand, I hate to think the Republicans will screw up again on their spending habits, earmarks, and pork that they will lose in 2012 and 2016. They must show us how serious they are in their spending habits, earmarks, and pork, bringing down the national debt and deficits. They must show how serious they are in tax and social security reform. They need to repeal the estate tax altogether and permanently.
If the GOP wins it back, they cannot afford to lose it again.
Derbyshire might have been right in allowing the Democrats to win last year.
We have problems in the election in that we had more seats to defend to start with and a bunch more going open with retirements.
Neither side has a coat tails advantage going so it’s all going to be on policy and funding of the races.
The recent two special elections took some of the air out of the left side, but also I am noting a lot of election fatigue in posts on the left.
You simply can’t keep up that level of hate year over year. If they don’t sweep in the elections in a major way I could envision support of some of the far left sites starting to dwindle.
One good indicator is the poor performance of the anti-war movies that just ran by. It shows even they couldn’t get out for even token support.
Another issue is all the flap around Global Warming even with the Bali conference is that they have milked it for about all it is worth.
The only tactic they have been using lately is “You must believe” like some TV evangelist rather than wanting to have a reasoned debate.
I predicted two years ago that many on the Left would walk away discouraged, no matter the outcome after 2008.
In the meanwhile, I suggest that over the recess that each member of Congress, especially the Leadership of both major parties, should look up in a dictionary the definition of “bi-partisan”. I expect they will find it doesn’t mean the other side just caves.
Once they understand this concept, I would hope they will come back with a little more respect for the other side of the isle. This applies to both sides. I also suggest the Speaker reread her promises of bipartisanship and congeniality that she professed this time last year, and figure out out to make them come true, else the name of the first woman Speaker of the House will go down as, let’s call it “disappointing” to be generous.
A “shove it down their throats” approach is for little children, so I suggest they grow up. It ultimately did in the Republicans, and the Democrats are finding that history can repeat itself in 2008.
You see it periodically but not consistently. I mean the word “shutdown“. Nobody wants to say it for fear of being blamed for making it happen, but, barring a miracle, it is coming.
In some ways, it’s non-use is going to make it harder on the Congressional Leadership to point at the White House. Add to that, yesterday the Congression Reasearch Office backed up Pentagon claims of “pink-slips” at US military bases by mid-February, if funding is not forthcoming. The Hill will be cast as knowing the possible impacts.
The fact is that we are 10 weeks into the new fiscal year and 11 of 12 appropriations bills are incomplete. If 2 or 3 had been passed, sent to the White House and vetoed, the Congressional Leadership could make a good case that the White House caused it, but that’s just not the case. This is plainly poor management, and that leaves the “buck” with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.
Face facts, even Newt did better in his first year (or any year) with Clinton.