WHY is everyone saying "Dems caved" on the funding bill?

[johnaries]

The majority of Dems voted against it - but the House and Senate are split so closely it only took a few Dems to vote with the Repukes to pass it.

The Dem Leadership spoke out against it. Don't criticize the Dem Leadership or ALL Dems because of a few.

What do you want? Do you want our own Dem "Hammer" to force everyone to vote the Party line? Isn't that one of the things we always criticized the Repukes for?

I know you're all frustrated. Can you imagine how frustrated our representatives are who actually speak out on our behalf and vote as we elected them to vote.... and it's still not enough? Can you imagine how frustrated they are when they do what we ask and then we blame them because they were unsuccessful?

The Democrats in office who voted the way we asked don't need our scorn - they need our support.

STOP SAYING that "Dems caved". START saying that "Most Dems tried" but can't be successful until WE get the rest of Congress on board. We squeaked out a narrow victory in 2006. Obviously, it wasn't enough. We need a veto-proof majority.

Until then, STOP BLAMING our Representatives who are trying their best. Blame the ones who aren't.

I'm not even a registered Democrat. I'm a registered Independent. And here I am defending the Democrats in office against false accusations from their own party. You should be ashamed of yourselves!

[Solly Mack]

1. How many times you gonna post this same post?

just curious

[MADem]

5. First time I've seen this perspective.

Things move fast around here!!!!

[Solly Mack]

7. Oh, it's down the page some now - the first one posted

Prolly the OP didn't notice it posted, so he posted gain...happens

[johnaries]

17. Sorry - I kept getting an error message.

had to delete my cookies and request a new password... I'm not sure what happened.

[Solly Mack]

21. Don't be sorry. Glitches happen.

Was just curious is all.

Thank you for answering :)

[johnaries]

26. Thanks!

Understanding people like you keep me coming back to DU.
:grouphug:

[BootinUp]

33. hopefully until

the onslaught of posts with a contradictory slant recede somewhat.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. ... Because they did? nt

[johnaries]

28. Before posting a "gut reaction" like that, would you at least read the post?

Repukes do gut reactions. We are better than that. Or, at least, so I thought.

[pnwmom]

3. Thank you for your support, johnaries.

As the cliche goes, leading the Democrats is like herding cats.

But better that than leading sheep.

[johnaries]

29. THANK YOU!

Our Democracy was based on the idea that "people can think for themselves". If we're going to all fall in line and be sheep, then we might as well have a King. Just like King George the Unitary Executive wants.

[tandot]

41. "Leading the Democrats is like herding cats. But better than leading sheep"

This is the best bumper sticker statement ever. A+++++++++++++


WOW. This is so to the point, pnwmom. :yourock:

[pnwmom]

47. Thank you, tandot.

:hi:

[MADem]

4. Because some people don't get it

And there are other reasons, too.

Some people are disruptors who want to split the party. That's pretty plain in some cases. They're not even subtle.

Some are blatantly trying to supress the vote, and pull Democrats away to fringe left groups with no money, no real base, and no hope of winning anything other than local contests. They're too fucking cheap to start a website for their own party, so they cadge and disrupt here.

Some people just like to get dramatic and fight--it's easier than actually getting off their asses and calling/postcarding/faxing vulnerable Senators up for reelection in 08 every single damned day to push them to the left.

The lack of knowledge on the details of the issues is just astounding. There's no excuse for it, really. People who get that PISSED ought to at least do a little research first. IMO.

[noamnety]

18. Wow. I am confused.

The majority of Dems (in the Senate plus the House) voted against it.

When you say: "The lack of knowledge on the details of the issues is just astounding" are you saying the majority of the dems in congress are too stupid to understand the issues, so that's why they voted against the bill?

Maybe the senate dems are smart, and the house dems are for the most part from fringe groups and too stupid to understand the war?

[MADem]

25. There's way more going on here. They knew they didn't have the votes.

It's like knowing you can't win the race. So why try? Better to save your strength for the next run.

Even if every DEM voted to end the funding....there's JOEMENTUM. He'd fuck it.

And even if we got a Republican or three to vote to end the funding, Monkey would still veto and we would not have enough votes to overcome that, either.

We need to get ten or fifteen Republicans to join us. Twenty one Republicans are up for reelection in 08 and are vulnerable to the VERY SAME PRESSURE that caused Obama and Hillary to vote against continued funding. Get those Republicans in line, and Harry Reid can get every Democrat to vote against it, too, or risk not getting one fucking DIME of DNC campaign cash when it's their turn to get reelected. Threats and promises....

[johnaries]

31. Excellent points. nt

[noamnety]

38. What do you mean, vote to end the funding?

They weren't holding a vote to END the funding. They were holding a vote to FUND it without withdrawel requirements.

You used some logic I didn't follow.

1. If the bill was going to pass without any dem votes, none of the dems had to vote for it. There's no reason for them to be complicit.
2. If the bill was going to fail, there would have been nothing for Bush to veto.

You haven't provided a reason why they couldn't have ALL done what MOST of the dems did.

They had to vote for it because otherwise it would have passed anyway?
They had to vote for it because if it failed, Bush would have vetoed something that didn't exist - and therefore wasn't vetoable?

I just can't make sense of your points at all here, sorry.

[MADem]

43. I'm trying to explain using shorthand, and not succeeding too well.

By putting withdrawal into the funding mix, you're essentially voting to defund over time. Because if there's no one over there, you aren't sending money over that way any more.

Let's just call it "a vote to end the war" for simplicity's sake.

To respond to your points:

The Democrats who voted with "continuing the war" (ie--here's your money, George, no strings) voted for reasons that included craven ones, for example, contributions from defense contractors, constituents who work in the defense industry, and defense assets in their districts/states. It makes those elements feel better if they see the guy they've tossed money at voting "their" way, because they want their jobs to continue, their businesses to flourish. If the guy votes the other way, they'll be screaming at him, not giving him money, and looking for a GOP candidate to go up against him--who needs that angst, when no matter what way you vote, there's no difference in the outcome?

However, IF we have enough votes to stop this madness AND override a veto (and the only way for that to happen is if we get a bunch of GOP types on the antiwar bandwagon in the Senate), Reid will "enforce party discipline" and make everyone vote to 'end the war.' Even the guys who are getting the money from the Defense contractors will roll over and vote the way Reid tells them, because the DNC and PAC dough is the BIGGEST chunk of their campaign warchests.

Now, here's the most important part--even if there was a big pissing contest, and they sent a Fuck You We're Leaving Bill to George, and he vetoed, over and over again...eventually, we'd get into CONTINUING RESOLUTION territory (unless we shut down the government, and that's not gonna happen--Pelosi will not be a Newt), and Bush would be given the SAME money for Defense as he got last year for the 4th Qtr, FY. Without a vote at all. Then, the DOD would strip money from stateside and European bases to make up for the shortfalls in Iraq. Either way, he'd GET the money. There wasn't much point in tilting at the windmill, because one way or another, the result would be the same. He'd still have gotten the money.

The only way we can take Bush's veto and shove it up his ass is to have enough votes to override it. We NEED a bunch of GOP cohorts to make that happen. When we get them in the Senate, Reid will force the Democrats to toe the line and vote to stop King George by threatening to withhold DNC cash and steer corporate dough AWAY from the guys who don't play ball. Until then, he may as well let them fill their warchests with defense cash, and keep the constituents who make money off this mess off their backs. No percentage in pissing off those constituents, and persuading them to start looking early, for a GOP replacement....

[noamnety]

48. I have a problem with voting to appease lobbyists.

A big problem.

Anyone doing that shit should be voted out on the basis of selling their votes. I think that gets to the heart of what their votes were about, though, more honestly than anything else, so kudos for posting it.

I don't think they need to worry about pissing off their constituents in general by voting no - we wouldn't have seen the presidential hopefuls vote the way they did if they thought their voters would have a problem with it. And therein lies the problem - the nonpresidential folks only have to compete against their local republican rivals. As long as they can perpetuate a two party system, they know they're safe voting the interests of defense contractors and big business. The voters are screwed, because we know (lord knows we hear it here enough) whatever crap votes they cast, they're still at least better than the republicans.

The ones who want to be president know they have to put the wishes of the people ahead of the wishes of their lobbyists at least until primary season is over. Then I guess they can go back to business as usual.

I'm all for the "we're funding a withdrawal and nothing else" bill. As many times as it takes. And shutting down the government. I was a government employee the last time it happened. Essential employees stayed on, despite the shut down. National Parks closed, if I remember right. Sucks for the folks who paid to vacation at them, but I'd rather create people with ruined vacation plans than create widows. The shutdown didn't even hurt the dems - the public support was with them for taking a stand. There's a lesson in that.

I'm fine with Bushco having to put the DOD on a diet. It's long overdue. We don't need to be operating military bases in a bajillion countries. I don't think we need all those bases in Europe - do you?

THAT would be a better compromise, as far as I'm concerned. You want to blow money on the golden embassy in Iraq? Pick some other US Military fortress to close. Yep, that's a compromise I can live with, much better than "you don't want timetables? Uh, okay, forget those then. Use as much money as you need, for whatever you want, George."

[MADem]

53. That's not their actual purpose, though. The vote they take won't make a difference, so

they vote strategically.

--They get some dough that they can use later.

--They avoid pissing off a base with a vote they'll likely have to make someday, but not 'today.'

--They avoid having a GOP challenger going after them early.

The result of their vote, either way, wouldn't make a difference. That's really not "appeasing lobbyists." It's simply being tactical and practical.

There is a HUGE difference between Obama/Clinton and some of these Senators, though--and it's an important distinction. All politics IS local. The presidential candidates are running a national campaign, which is different from dealing with parochial concerns. Overall, the Californians and Massachusettsians, for example, are going to trend more liberally, but there are states where defense is BIG business, where the military plays a big role, and while people in general want the war to end, they realize that there goes their job at the body bag/armament/kevlar/Humvee factory if it does, and they aren't really OK with that. On the one hand, they SAY they want it to end, but they want that job, that industry, that bump in their economy. Their public pronouncements and their private thoughts don't always line up.

Another aspect of all this is that most Americans do not know a single person serving in Iraq. Less than one percent of our country is serving today. The urgency of Vietnam, where everyone not only KNEW someone, but likely had a relative, distant or close, over there, isn't present. And look how long it took us to extricate ourselves from THAT mess. Here's hoping we don't take so long this time around, and that we actually learned something.

As for the bases in Europe, I oversaw closure of a shitload of them in the 90s. We don't have a bajillion of them anymore, even though it might seem so. We've halved the total, and we aren't done yet. There is talk of another BRAC round--who knows if they'll get to it in this environment. Of course, they're building them hand over fist in the ME...so much for "the drawdown" I guess. They're also doing a lot of installation consolidation (realignment), stateside and overseas, to include Asia, where they reduce the administrative overhead by consolidating functions on a single installation.

The Embassy construction, for Iraq or anywhere, doesn't come out of MILCON, though. The money for that is from a completely separate pot of money that comes out of STATE, not DOD.

I had a hundred civilian employees during the Newt business. I didn't let them in the building. None were sufficiently "essential." Uniforms did it all. It sucked. It was exhausting. The one thing that DID come out of that Newt thing, though, is that a shitload of civilians lost their jobs--not straight away, but within four years of that event. We were directed to do a top down review of all positions, and we chopped like crazy. We cut entire functions that had been duplicated and left in place over the years because of territorial horseshit, and did it in context with some significant reorganizations, too.

Since funding comes out of the House, shutting down the gov't would put Pelosi in Newt's role. Fuggedaboutit. Ain't gonna happen, as Poppy sez. Wouldn't be prudent. She will never do it. Never. She saw how that stunt ruined him. She won't even contemplate that mistake.

So, the bottom line is, Bush was gonna get his 4th Qtr money either way--by vote, or by CR. The only bright spot in all this is that, when this effort fails, as it will, he can't say the entire Congress didn't give him more than enough rope to hang himself.

I'm hoping General BetrayUs will give The BoyKing a "Come to Jesus" talk before too many more servicemembers die...it's what needs to happen. And those Senators up for reelection in 08 really DO need to hear from their antiwar constituencies. If they don't, they won't feel the pressure to change.

[Robbien]

6. Dems didn't cave, Dems bragged that they deceived the voters to continue the war

And here’s the worst part of it all - Democrats are now bragging about it. Not only have they sent out a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraising email attempting to confuse voters by claiming with a straight face that they really stood up to President Bush. But most insulting of all, they are actually running to reporters to pat themselves on the back for engineering a procedural pirouette designed to confuse the public. Here’s the Post again:

“But while protesters outside the Capitol condemned what they saw as a capitulation, Democrats inside were remarkably understanding of their speaker’s contortions. Party leaders jury-rigged the votes yesterday to give all Democrats something to brag about…Democrats saw brilliance in the legerdemain. And with such contortions came more appreciation for the efforts Pelosi was making to fund the war in a fashion most palatable to angry Democrats. ‘It was the responsible thing to do, and she’s a responsible speaker,’ said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.).”

This is what we’re dealing with folks. A party that runs to the press to brag about the brilliance of using their majority not to end the war, but to create a situation that makes it seem as if they oppose the war, while actually helping Republicans continue it.

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/05/25/the-final-insult-dems-brag-to-press-about-deceiving-the-public-on-iraq/

So you are right. Dems on purpose voted against it and bragged to the press that it was all a game to continue funding the carnage in Iraq. Hey Dems want to keep the war lobbyists happy.

[tnlefty]

9. Thanks for this link!

Thank you very much. :hi:

[johnaries]

22. Jeez! Talk about SPIN!

I'll admit, I couldn't even finish the article. It was so obviously biased from the beginning I just couldn't imagine it bringing anything "enlightening" or constructive to the table.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. With All Due Respect, 38 Senate Dems For, Only 11 Against. Let's Be Honest Here Ok?

Over 3 in 1 in favor is not exactly a majority against.

Not saying I don't feel where you're coming from, but if you're going to defend at least do so properly.

[MADem]

15. Honesty? Amongst the Society of the Perpetually Outraged?

The Committe For Obfuscating Facts and Muddying Issues?

Hell, until everyone jumps in their boat and sinks it, they won't be happy. And then, they'll gripe that they have to swim.

They'd rather a party of idiotic, unthinking lemmings that follow only THEIR way, with none of those pesky "individual opinions" getting in the way.

38 is ALMOST 50. But we need more than that, and given that Joementum ain't EVER gonna vote against this war he loves so well, the deal was IMPOSSIBLE at this point.

Of the one third of the Senate up for reelection in 08, TWENTY ONE ARE REPUBLICANS. Those are the bastards that need to be leaned on, and HARD. Each day, every day. Phone, fax, email, postcard. After all, some baaastids will do ANYTHING to keep their seat. Many of those twenty one CAN be persuaded, and they should be. That'll make it easier for Reid to twist arms and FORCE his crew to vote against any more money for this folly. But why bother to insist upon lockstep behavior, when the result will be the same, anyway?

It's heartening that more than three quarters of a conservative Senate (and as a group, they're more conservative than the House Democratic caucus) see the light. But they don't get credit for it, because it's easier to scold and hector. Pile on smartly, I guess...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. 38 Voted Yes. Only 11 Voted No. You Referenced The 38 As If They Voted No.

Did you mean to?

[MADem]

20. No, you're right. I stand corrected.

On edit--I thought your numbers were high, but I hadn't done a count and examined every vote. I knew of a few, but not everyone who voted no. I see now I transposed.

[johnaries]

35. I was talking about the House, which is where most of the angst seems to be focused.

I've seen too many railings against Pelosi.

And, to be honest, some of the Dem Senators voting "for" made some excellent points. I may not have agreed with all of them, but at least they put some thought and some consideration into their votes - instead of just voting the Party Line.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Actually it is in fact the Senate that truly pisses me off.

But you limped them both together to make your point and that was not exactly honest of you.

"The majority of Dems voted against it - but the House and Senate are split so closely it only took a few Dems to vote with the Repukes to pass it."

I actually take some consolation in the fact that a majority of the Democratic Party House caucus is not in league with the neocon cabal. The senate is totally FUBAR.

[greyghost]

10. Some people fail...

to grasp the reality of the situation.

We are going to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. If you doubt this take a look at Germany and South Korea. This debate is nothing more then semantics. The only real question is how fast can we withdraw the troops from the streets and let this civil war play itself out naturally. As for myself, I am all for withdrawing them YESTERDAY.

[NavyDavy]

11. until it sinks into everyone head!!! and it shld be posted

over and over

[Robbien]

14. Just like Fauxnews. Repeat a big fat lie over and over again

and hope your audience is so stupid that they don't understand they are being played.

While this thread declares once again the lie that Dems didn't want the bill to pass, the real truth is Dems desperately wanted the bill to pass. Dems said so themselves. Dems issued letters and press releases saying they played the voters to make sure Bush got his carnage fully funded and that the Dems were very happy to help Bush get his war on.

[MADem]

19. To be precise...

This thread PROTESTS the lie that Dems didn't want the bill to pass. It doesn't declare it, it takes issue with it.

The OP avers that the Dems did NOT cave, and is annoyed that some people who don't get how things work are repeating that bullshit over and over...

[Robbien]

27. Oh. Then nevermind. I agree with the OP. Dems wanted the bill to pass.

Sorry.

[MADem]

30. Hey, no worries, we're on the same side on this matter...

And in the minority here, apparently!!

[liberal N proud]

12. No reason to say the turd smells like a rose

Everyone knows better and that would be so republicon

[BlooInBloo]

13. Because Dems caved on the funding bill is my best guess.

[tridim]

23. Americans are just freaked out about Iraq and they want out yesterday.

I probably overreacted a bit the past few days, but that's how dashed hopes tend to affect me.

[johnaries]

36. Thank you for your honesty. I suspect the same is true for many of us.

We just don't want to admit it. Real Change takes time.

[Nunyabiz]

24. Bullshit

They caved in like a Souffle in an Earthquake.
All these spineless idiots had to do WAS NOTHING! That's it, NOTHING! no need for any Bill/Legislation just dont fund the occupation period and they couldn't even do nothing right.

They caved

[johnaries]

37. Thank you for that intelligent, insightful analysis.

As I said before, I know we are all frustrated. But we are the Progressives! We don't allow frustrations to overcome us. We look at the problem honestly and discuss it openly and then do what we can to rectify the problem.

Blaming others is a REPUBLICAN trait. Quit yer bitchin' and let's develop a strategy!

[Nunyabiz]

39. I simply stated a fact

and there is ONLY ONE strategy left and that is a full blown revolution to clean this mess up.
Thomas Jefferson said that this country needs a good revolution about every 20 years to keep things in check, well we are LONG overdue which is why we are in this mess, everyone just sits around with their thumbs up their arse.

[johnaries]

42. Jefferson was correct - which is why the Constitution PROVIDES

for a Revolution every few years. They are called Elections.

We had a minor Revolution in 2006. It won't be complete until 2008.

In the meantime, if we keep blaming the Revolutionaries then the Revolution may not end up the way we want.

You DID NOT state a fact. You stated an opinion. Opinions are welcomed, but not when they are disguised as "fact".

[robinlynne]

58. we dont have elections anymore. haven't you noticed?

[Nunyabiz]

62. Elections are NOT revolutions

and we don't even have valid/honest elections anymore so that "opinion" of yours is hogwash. Elections are NOT what Jefferson was referring to BTW, and YES I DID STATE FACT as quite clearly the Democrats as usual caved & wimped out if you cant acknowledge that then you are in deep denial.
You need to get a grip.

[DU GrovelBot]

## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[EFerrari]

50. Not now, Grovelbot.

:rofl:

[bread_and_roses]

32. because they did. (n/t)

[ValiantBlue]

34. I have to respectfully disagree

It is clear that they caved. It may not be fair to lump Kucinich and select few who were against this but they all probably feel ashamed that their own party turned their backs on what they were fighting for in the first place.

[johnaries]

40. Thank you for your respectful disagreement.

You are correct, it is not fair to lump Kuchinich and the "more than a select few" in with all Dems. As I said before, I did hear some of the other Dems talk about their decisions. Although it was not what I wanted to hear, I'll admit that they brought up some very good points and I could understand their reasoning whether I agreed with it or not. Unlike the
Republicans who decide on a course of action and then try to justify it.

I'm just glad that we have finally have some Congress Critters who are actually THINKING rather than voting the way Tom Delay or GWB tells them to vote.

edit to add: Unfortunately, we just don't have enough of them yet. Hopefully, we can fix that in the next election. Until then, keep expecting a lot of stalemates just like this one.

[MazeRat7]

44. Errr.. because they did. - nt

[Laurier]

45. Because they caved.

[RockLacrosse20]

46. We only speak the truth

The event which occured on Capitol Hill this weeks showcases the need for Nancy Pelosi to be replaced. I have no problem with a woman speaker, but she was ONLY picked because of that. Her Congressional original does not help because SF requires to real bipartisan comprimose, so as speaker she realized she had to do that, but fucked up royally. We need a speaker who will fight.

And don't think I let harry Reid go either. He is too soft spoken. In politics, personality matters. We need someone like newt gingrich in terms of how he leads his party, minus the corruption. Harry Reid and Pelosi failed us on the most important issue of today, which they campaigned on in 06. They broke their promise, and they better heal it or get out.

[LostinVA]

54. OMFG -- you're spreading this garbage all through the big forums

Might as well add sexism to your list too, eh?

[RockLacrosse20]

59. sexism?

how am i being sexist? if the house had a woman like Hillary Clinton, i'd be all for her being speaker.

[LostinVA]

64. That Pelosi only got her job because she's a woman

You may be feeling some people on here, but not everyone.

WElcome to my IL. Enjoy your stay.

[Nunyabiz]

63. What garbage?

Sounds about right to me, or is telling the truth considered "garbage" nawadayz?

Both Pelosi & Reid are failing miserably, have been since day one soon as she came out and spewed "Impeachment is off the table".
Without Impeachment of these treasonous war criminals that were never elected in the first place NOTHING will get done.

[LostinVA]

65. Stating that Pelosi only got her job because she's a woman is garbage

RW garbage. That isn't truth, it's patronizing bigotry, and has no place on DU. It is, however, par for the course as per this poster's own posting history.

[Nunyabiz]

68. well that's true

I don't think she got the job solely because she was a woman although I wouldn't doubt if it played a small role in it. That is how petty politics is.

But regardless how she got there she is a failure.

[Gelliebeans]

69. I am scratching my head

at this one also. :crazy:

Jeezo the sexism around here lately is rampant.

[AuntPatsy]

49. I completely agree with you.

[rucky]

51. I call it a victory! They finally figured out a way to avoid a veto. nt

[Redstone]

52. Because enough of them did? You think?

Redstone

[w4rma]

56. Because they caved horribly. They didn't even try to do Murtha's 2 month trial bill.

They went with a bill that gives funding for essentially 9 months. They gave the Republican leadership *everything* the Republican leadership wanted. Heck they even put the minimum wage bill into a bill that Republicans can go back to their base and tell them that they were "forced" to vote for it.

Hillary and Obama tacitly supported the IWR-2007.
Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Why? Because there isn't a better word for it.

As Mr. Kucinich said, if no legislation were offered, it would have been better. That would have defunded the war. Bush got a blank check from now to September.

This is a major disappointment.

I'm not hammering the Democrats like some, but they better get this right in September. If Mr. Bush doesn't want funding with string attached, then he doesn't want it bad enough. This war is going to end.

[Zandor]

60. K & R

I trid here, too, friend.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x968291

[Ratty]

61. Pre election promises are what pissed me off

Frankly, I never thought it was possible they could pull it off. There was no way they could win that particular battle, cutting off funding for the troops. He could always use the Teddy Roosevelt approach. Use all the money to send the troops there then leave it up to Congress to provide the money to get them back, or some such. There was talk about the election sending a signal to Bush and that would persuade him to yield to the new congress. But these guys had to have known Bush wouldn't do that. The man is not sane.

No, what pisses me off is the pledges they made to get elected. Lies, because they knew they could never pull it off.

[Individualist]

66. That's a no brainer question

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x961131

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=975766&mesg_id=975766

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=972947&mesg_id=972947

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=968139

[Marr]

67. They played politics with their actual vote, but only after the bill's passage was assured.

If people aren't hip to that crap by now, I don't know what to say.

The Dem leadership is treating this as a political opportunity, rather than a moral responsibility. Allowing the war to continue will hurt the Republican Party and help the Democratic Party- but I couldn't give a shit less about that. I want them to end this thing for the good of country.

[OzarkDem]

70. No, they didn't try hard enough

Where are the Tom Delays of the Democratic Party who were willing to go break some kneecaps and twist some arms in order to put an end to this war?

Let me guess, how many of you can even name the Majority Whip of the Dem Party in Congress - the person whose job it is to count the votes, twist the arms and cut the deals to get what Leadership wants.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the Dem leadership didn't want to work hard to end this war or they're too inexperienced to know how to use their power.

[krkaufman]

71. "our own Dem "Hammer" to force everyone to vote the Party line?"

Worse, yet... enforcement of a top-down authoritarianism like that would necessitate that we find our own Karl Rove, a high-functioning sociopath committed to destroying the professional and personal lives of anyone who crosses him.

[cymbalta]

72. why? because THEY DID genius.

Most Dems tried SHIT. You should be ashamed for not understand reality.

Democrats can end this war NOW if they want, which they don't. What they really wanted was to keep this war going until 08 so Bush stayed on the defensive and Dems would gain some seats, the WH, or so they dreamed. Seats are more important than human lives and the end of carnage. They have just shot themselves on the foot on that one, didn't they?, since now Bush is victorious and Repugs are saying, correctly, that Dems have just given Bush a blank check to continue this war indefinitely. So it's their war too. The essence of the Gravel Plan (if Dems had a spine and were at least interested, which they aren't): the congressional leadership would draw-out over days and weeks, if necessary, repeated daily cloture votes in the Senate and repeated daily veto override votes in both chambers to give American voters time to weigh-in and force two-thirds of their Senators and Representatives to vote to override the President's veto of the American will.

Gravel added: "In the face of a President oblivious to human suffering and death, the voting public is the only power that can stop the war. The Congress can and must energize this citizen's power. Timidity, compromise, comity and politics as usual are not viable alternatives to LEADERSHIP when Americans and Iraqis are dying every day."

There IS a way out, Dems just don't want it. Saying that they just caved is even too good for these bastards. They have fucking blood on their hands.

[mmonk]

73. That's the general concensus not only here

but everywhere. Have you got evidence they stood up? Share it but it has to be honest.

[Toots]

74. You do know it was a Democrat bill that was voted on don't you?

Dems wrote the damn thing......