You sound an awful lot like a guy I know: Barak Obama.

Somewhat unrelated, but Radley Balko takes down republicans who attacked ron paul at fox news:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2741 74,00.html

It's true that having the war come up again and again is a loser for Republicans, and I completely agree with Jerome's post, but the sad thing about the war issue is that it will almost certainly end up a loser for the Dems too.  By not pushing any sort of finality to the issue now, it will only keep interfering with their domestic agenda.  The Senate someday needs to get back to working on the Six for 06 legislation that the House has already passed.  There's a lot of work to be done building coalitions and getting Republican votes on all of those other issues.
We could end up approaching the 08 elections with a Democratic Congress perhaps passing a mangled immigration bill, a watered-down ethics bill, no minimum wage, and perhaps indeed realistically not being able to push through any of those things...

Bill Clinton, you better go back on Larry King and apologise for your idiotic statement that there is no real difference between Lieberman and Lamont. Hillary, nice photoop with Lamont, but you know that Bill wouldn't say it during an election period unless it was OK by you.

Obama, nice preprimary endorsement, you politician. If Lieberman got his clock cleaned out instead of narrowly defeated in the primary, who knows, he might not have retained enough support for the senate election last November.

Thank you, Jerome, for your timely dose of circumspection.  

Like many Democrats, I've been disappointed this week.  But I've lived long enough to recognize the verity of Hofstadter's Law:  It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law.

Sometimes political change happens quickly, but most of the time it occurs at a glacial pace--things continue to move, even though you can't see them doing so.

If that's what happened, then IMHO Reid should have gone ahead with a vote on a bill WITH timelines, forcing Hagel and Smith to vote against it to demonstrate just who caved, THEN he could have brokered the present bill with a clean conscience.

Maybe this was the best Reid could do, but it definitely wasn't the best way to get there.

How is it a win for the Democrats to have most headlines in the country be some variation on "Democrats cave to Bush"?

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1116487860&a mp;hl=en

If the "not doing enough" to stop the Iraq war polling number spikes after this, then the "spasm" is justified. If not, then you're right and this is a political win (or at least a draw).

The excuses start.

"Bush wins Iraq showdown with Congress
DEMS BOW TO BUSH ON FUNDS FOR WAR
Democrats to fund Iraq war with no pullout date"

There is not one word in there that is inaccurate.

Further, several weeks ago the liberal blogs were all over the WaPo for running an article saying the Dems were going to cave.  It was 100% correct.  

Where are the mea culpas on all the blogs that accused the WaPo of slander?

". . . there's no sense in adopting the press frame of a hyperbolic defeatism aimed at the Democrats in the Senate for not having the votes from Republicans to end the war."

Yeah, one day the Democrats will be in the majority and all will be different, right?  Oops, who is the majority party now?

Come on!  A little reality.  This isn't the first time progressives have been stabbed in the back by the Democrats.  What about the original war resolution? You can name hundreds of times we have been nailed -- many of them within the last few months!

So here is where we begin: stop the excuses; let the leadership know that they have made an error so big that it threatens our continued support; stop accusing those who are simply speaking the truth of bias -- its down right silly.  It's not the media's fault that Pelosi and Reid thought it more important to go on the Memorial Day break with a bill that gives Bush everything he wants than actually creating a bill the majority of Americans could support.  

Bill O'Reilly has not vote in the Congress.  This time the blame starts and stops in one place: the Democrats.

This isn't surprising.  Put up the appearance of a fight, then give W enough rope to hang his whole party.  Regardless of the headlines, this is a move done to set up a major landslide in 2008.

Although I agree with the guy who said Reid should have made Smith and Hagel (Smith especially) go on record as caving on the war.  That may have been the final nail in his re-election coffin.

and that raised people's hopes. And now here's the 'compromise' bill which is not really a compromise with what the House was attempting to do.

What I would've loved to have seen was Nancy P., when the 'compromise' became capitulation, coming out of the smoke-filled room and saying, "Enough! This is a Republican bill now so I'm out of here."

It was/is politically counterproductive for the Democratic leadership to manage the President's bills for him.

From the outset, any approach other than giving Bush a blank check was doomed to fail so long as Democrats believed they needed to "have the votes" to shut-off funding, and feared being blamed for "not funding the troops" (whatever that means).

In effect, the Democratic majority telegraphed their lack the moral and political commitment to stop funding the occupation, and to leverage the consequences of federal anti-deficiency law to chain the dogs of war.

Now, Reid wants to put language to end the occupation (or whatever) into the mandatory Defense fiscal appropriation bill. This is not only insane, it's political suicide. Just ask Newt.

If the Dems do this, Bush would likely force a partial government shutdown by vetoing the Defense bill and any continuing resolutions.

The Dems are blowing the best opportunity to end this disaster. Supplemental appropriations are not mandatory. Not sending a bill forward achieves the desired outcome of ending the occupation. Not having the votes is not the problem; Democrats are the problem.

If playing games with a non-mandatory supplemental appropriation bill was fun, just wait until Reid poisons the Defense bill.

Jerome, THANK YOU for some political sanity.  

The Dems had no way to win in the Senate.  We just keep pushing.  Anyone who thought getting us out of Iraq would be easy was naive politically.

And to those progressives who threaten to "withdraw support" for Dems, I wish to offer a simple reminder:  NADER in 2000...  If he hadn't gotten the votes in FL and NH, IRAQ WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.  

Good (or at least not bad) is more important than perfect.

The Congressional Dems were using this opportunity to help their Presidential candidates show the anti-war movement that they were serious about getting out of Iraq. We knew they were going to cave in. And probably will cave for the remainder of the Bush term. They still aren't that serious about getting out of Iraq especially since Clinton said she would keep a residual force in Iraq even after 2008 presidential election. I think both parties are captive of the special interest beholdent to the Iraq war. Also, in relating to this war, the dems need to stop blaming the republicans for the oil crisis. They need to do something.  Also, they spent so much capital just like Bush did on Social Security on getting out of Iraq, they should of saved the capital for the Fall veto session.

Bullsh*t. Sorry but it is. Congress does not have to send the president another bill period. They could choose to never vote on this again. That doesn't even take a majority in either house with the leadership in Dem hands. They could also vote for funds for a safe withdrawal only, or impeach.

Choosing to cave on the timetable was tragic, spineless, and will be punished by the voters. Deservedly so.

I am aghast that you would take the stance that this is not a defeat for the Democratic party. While it is simply true that the Democrats do not have the votes to override a Bush veto this is no excuse to cave to Bush at this time. If anything, the Democratic party should be placing continuous pressure on the White House to end this senseless war. Every. Single. Day.

The current policy of the Democratic party in both Houses of Congress IS defeatist. We the people should hold their feet to the fire and raise as much hell as is absolutely possible to make certain they understand that we will hold them to account for their Bush gets a pass actions.

End this war NOW!

that Democrats were the ones withholding funds is defeatist. Democrats had the support of a majority of Americans on this issue, an issue in which the public is becoming more and more aware that the President is more concerned with his legacy and ego than the welfare of the country.

Regardless of all else, it is the poor Democratic messaging, framing, and political prowess that led to the slew of headlines we saw last night and today. They set up a confrontation which they were not willing to see through, thus reinforcing the belief that Democrats are more concerned with their political lives than the lives of U.S. servicemen.

I find it ridiculous to think that, even though there was no will to call Bush's bluff on a bill intended specifically to fund the Iraq war and nothing else (nothing else apart from the unrelated add-ons, I mean), there will suddenly be vigorous support for trying to end the war through the main defense funding bill-- which is the plan some Dem leaders claim they are going to follow.  So they are going to grow a spine on the defense bill, where a showdown would result in the military as a whole going unfunded?  How likely-- or smart-- is that?

Saying the Dems blinked on this is not a "frame" and it is not a product of the usual media swallowing of Repub talking points-- it is a fact.  The Democratic majority, thin or not, rolled over for Mr. 28 Percent.  If this was always the plan, to capitulate so completely and in such a way as to make Bush look strong, then this was a deeply stupid plan.  And the suggestion that keeping the war on the front burner-- and keeping the war going at all-- is in any way justified by electoral gains a year and a half from now is disgusting.  At the rate of, what, 2 or 3 American dead per day?  And who knows-- or, sadly, cares-- how many more Iraqis dead?  

I just can't fathom why the Dems did not simply say, WE FUNDED THE WAR IN THE MANNER THAT THE VOTERS ASKED US TO--THAT IS, WITH A PLAN TO GET OUR TROOPS OUT ASAP-- BUSH VETOED IT, THAT IS ON HIM.  How hard is that?  Why the assumption on the part of Dems that they had to get another bill to the President AT ALL, once the original bill was vetoed?    

There is an alternative to caving, and it's still possible. That is to include one final benchmark in this bill: an Iraqi referendum on the continued occupation of their country. With 71 percent of Iraqis wanting U.S. troops out in a year or less, this would be sure to pass. Adding this benchmark would be the functional equivalent of a withdrawal timeline. It would likely lead to the withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2008, if not earlier. I have written an extensive four-part diary exploring all facets of this idea which I've posted by MyDD, under the name "A New Way Out of Iraq."

In brief, my proposal is for the Congress to add the following section to pending legislation: The Iraqi government is strongly urged to hold a referendum within four months after this legislation is signed on whether and for how long the occupation of Iraq should continue.  The U.S. government would be required to support and facilitate the holding of such an election, and if the Iraqi government asks us to leave, to do so, according to their timetable and their requirements.

The basic concept behind the referendum was supported by 67 percent of Republicans in a little-noticed November 2006 poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).
The poll asked "if the majority of the Iraqi people say they want the United States to commit to withdraw U.S. forces according to a timeline of no more than a year, do you think the U.S. should or should not do so?" 67 percent of Republicans said the United States should do so (close to the overall support of 73 percent). That's a shift from two-thirds support for the president's position to two-thirds support for a one-year withdrawal from Iraq!

And because it does not tie the president's or the military's hands in conducting the war, it would be hard for the president to veto, to reject legislation that encourages Iraqis to exercise their democratic rights when the Bush administration has supported democratizing the Middle East and justified the U.S. presence in Iraq on that basis. Even if such legislation is vetoed and the veto upheld, however, its passage by Congress might well encourage the Iraqis to hold such a vote on their own initiative. After all, last week, the majority of the Iraqi parliament, 144 out of 275 members, signed a petition calling for a withdrawal timeline.

I urge you to have the courage and common sense to bump these diaries onto your front page so we can have a chance to add what amounts to a withdrawal deadline to this awful compromise bill. And please forwward this idea to members of Congress.  

You miss the f#@!ing point, entirely!

How can little Ron Paul buck the entire Republican party and still get elected and held to high esteem?

Weak bastards like Schumer, Reid and Emanuel and Hoyer never see the bigger picture.  And neither are you.

They've just given back on a silver platter, in a time of war, they very thing that brought them to power in the first place.

But worse, according to CQ the oil law benchmark was left in with the Democrats full approval, especially at Hoyers's insistance.

The passage of this bill thanks to a few of your 'innocent' pandering Moderate Democratic friends will reward Bush, Cheney and their friends with the ultimate prize for invading Iraq.  All the oil they can steal for decades to come.

What a humiliating blow to Democratic principles!
Hell I'll never work for or vote for Dems again until Reid and Hoyer and Emanuel are OUT!

If you listened to Kucinich today, he revealed that Iraqi's 'share' of the oil is only 12.5%!
But 12.5% of only a few of the current fields now in production, and at a reduced barrel price Kucinich says may be around $40.00 per barrel.

All the rest goes to George and Co.