It seems to me that as of one day before Election Day 2006, progressives had a solid grasp of what good things would flow from winning congressional majorities. In brief:
* No more domestic agenda for George W. Bush.
* Oversight hearings.
* Control of the agenda to rame issues in ways favorable to the Democrats for 2008.
Sometime in December, however, people seem to have gotten it into their head that something else would happen. That narrow congressional majorities were actually going to seize control of American national security policy in the face of determined opposition from the President of the United States supported nearly uniformly by his copartisans in congress. Thus, Matt Stoller
includes on his list of "groups and individuals" who are "blocking real progress on Iraq," "Harry Reid, who failed to get a vote on a non-binding resolution in the Senate, and doesn't think his
original war vote was wrong. It's Bush's fault apparently that Reid voted for the war. Like with his stance on Alito, Reid is giving the impression of action, but not the teeth."
Well, no. Look, Matt Yglesias leading a caucus of 51 Democratic Senators that includes Joe Lieberman, Bill Nelson, and Tim Johnson couldn't get much done in these circumstances either. Nor could Matt Stoller. It's not
Reid's fault that there aren't 60 votes for a non-binding resolution on Iraq in the Senate (except in the sense that the "nuclear option" fight was mishandled way back in the day, and Democrats should have tried to abolish filibusters altogether). Blame Lieberman. Blame Jeff Sessions. And, again, ask yourself: If Reid's resolution is so useless, why is the GOP so determined to defeat it? And if it's so difficult to get 60 votes for this measure, what would the point be in proposing something more far-reaching that would only fail by a larger margin? The sad reality is that what Matt and I would like to see the Democrats accomplish is, under the circumstances,
very difficult to achieve. Progressives should keep the pressure on for action, but we need to understand that objective circumstances matter. This is a slow boring of hard boards kind of situation, and it's extremely frustrating, but it's also
George W. Bush's fault, not Reid's.
I found this comment interesting:
If Stoller wants to blame someone for the timidity of the Democrats, perhaps he should consider our incredibly lame and ineffective anti-war "movement," which has proven utterly incapable of translating the majority of America's manifest frustration with this war into anything like effective pressure. They've totally failed to stake out a credible position to the left of the Democratic leadership, which would (a) probably be substantively correct, at least by my lights (b) more importantly, create room for maneuver so that Democrats could push stronger resolutions but still appear moderate.
linkOf course, there was the
march in DC which attracted hundreds of thousands of protesters, but how does this translate to pressure and impact Congress?
This is why the
Alito filibuster effort was encouraging. It coalesced public opposition to Alito.
Now Senator Dodd is trying to do the same with his
restore-habeas.org and Senator Kerry with
setadeadline.comWithout a strong effort, we take what we can get:
After four days of debate, the House of Representatives just approved a non-binding resolution that opposes President Bush's plan for increasing troop levels in Iraq.
But understand the limitations of non-binding resolutions, such as this one from
November 2005, which are supposed to indicate where the majority in Congress stands and, in this case, send a strong signal to Bush. Does Bush understand signals or pay attention to them?
Unlike the House vote, the Senate couldn't even get pass the
debate stage.
The media reports are focusing on
Republican Senate heroes and strength and Democratic Senate shortcomingsSo the Democrats appear to have gone from wait until 2006 to wait until 2008. The Congress throws up a bunch of non-binding resolutions, Americans throw their hands in the air, and everyone waits, which seems a little arrogant---we will have a Democratic president and super majority in 2008. Sure.
Meanwhile, Steve Clemons is selling
Hagel again.
Hagel:
Conservative Voting Records . . .
Senator Hagel has one of the most solid conservative voting records in the U.S. Senate. The following are his lifetime ratings from some important organizations:
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) 94% (2000 - 2004)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce 96% (1997 - 2004)
American Conservative Union (ACU) 87% (1997 - 2004)
National Taxpayers Union 78% (1999 - 2004)
National Right to Life Committee 94% (2000 - 2004)
Year Hagel's Support of President Bush's Priorities in the Senate
2005 89%
2004 94%
2003 98%
2002 98%
2001 96%
Source: Congressional Quarterly, January 2006
linkRepublicans up for reelection in 2008 -- 21:
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN)
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Coleman, Norm (R-MN)
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)
Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Craig, Larry E. (R-ID)
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC)
Domenici, Pete V. (R-NM)
Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY)
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Smith, Gordon H. (R-OR)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Sununu, John E. (R-NH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
Iraq is a
mess and the
Americans know this.
Don't wait, hold
Congress accountable now. Put the pressure on. These Senators will listen to their constituents. If they don't, there could be a repeat of 2006. But waiting is not an option because
people are dying.
edited to fix link
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
