In April, 59 percent of independents said Democrats were taking a stronger role, but that figure has dropped 15 points, to 44 percent.The political machinations over the Iraq war funding bill have been the dominant news event in Congress for much of the spring, and the Democrats' removal of the provision linking funding to a withdrawal deadline came shortly before the poll was taken.
In April, the public, by a 25-point margin, trusted the Democrats over Bush to handle the situation in Iraq. In this poll, Democrats maintained an advantage, but by 16 points.
The public was with us and the Democratic Congress blew it by not challenging the President's arrogance. The Congress should have stood up to Bush (see below). The Democratic Party needs new strategists, consultants, leaders, and spine. It is time that we contact our Democratic representatives NOW and tell them to "STAND UP TO BUSH NOW". Congress: figure it out and act!
__________________________________________________
I'm going to try and explain why I think the Democrats MISSED a key opportunity FOR POLITICAL GAIN by voting "yes" to the Iraq Funding Bill.
For this argument, I'm taking off the table the fact that the Democrats do not have veto-proof majority. That is the reality but that does not take away our ability to take advantage of a KEY POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY to support your base and support the American public that is on your side on this issue. It's done all the time: the Republicans keep abortion and gay marriage on their political plate to get the voters to the polls.
Benchmarks (or call them anything that you want) are Constitutionally mandatated since Congress' responsibility is to monitor what they have set in place: sending our soldiers in harms way to an Iraqi civil war. At the bottom of the diary I've included some January 2007 testimony that was provided to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, regarding the war and Congress' powers.
So what if you don't have a veto-proof majority. What you do have is an opportunity to grab the bully pulpit by resending (or trying to resend) the bill, with benchmarks, to the President.
You announce your intentions why you are resending the bill:
1. We are funding the troops and have even included more money than the President requested.
2. We are doing what the American public has asked us to do -- include benchmarks with that funding.
3. We want to ensure that our soldiers are being protected by ensuring that the President has not sent us into one more quaqmire.
4. We will carefully assess the status of the benchmarks in September to determine where we go from there.
5. We are doing what the Constitution mandates us to do.
THE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE THAT YOU HAVE GAINED:
1. You've grabbed the bully pulpit.
2. In the public's eye/opinion, you've now reinforced the idea that you are doing what they (the public) have asked you to do.
3. You've shifted the onus to the President to act.
4. If the President vetoes again -- You immediately and loudly repeat 1-5 and declare that--
--- IT IS THE PRESIDENT WHO IS NOT FUNDING THE WAR .
--- IT IS THE PRESIDENT WHO IS PUTTING OUR SOLDIERS IN DANGER AND AT RISK.
--- MR. PRESIDENT, YOU ARE DEFYING WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT YOU TO DO!
Now you've put Bush on the defensive. He can veto or compromise. If he vetos, you have your response which should force him to compromise. And by being so aggressive and decisive , you'd scare Republicans a lot closer to your side.
For those RK posters who think that politics shouldn't be part of this issue, you overlook the fact that Bush has made this war political. Just look at his State of the Union address last year. What is most important is getting rid of a Republican Presidency and this can't be accomplished unless Democrats forcefully turn the tables on Bush and throw him on the defensive regarding funding. The public MUST see that IT IS BUSH WHO IS VETOING FUNDING not the Democrats.
THE GOOD NEWS: We would look incredibly decisive, incredibly strong. And that is a good thing!
Statement by Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, appearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War, January 30, 2007 http://www.constitut...
...
Congress is not merely a coequal branch of government. The framers vested the decisive and ultimate powers of war and spending in the legislative branch. We start with that basic understanding. American democracy places the sovereign power in the people and entrusts to them the temporary delegation of their power to elected Senators and Representatives. Members of Congress take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, not the President. Their primary allegiance is to the people and the constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of power.1 Any interpretation of presidential power that fails to take account of those basic concepts is contrary to the democratic system established in the United States.The legislative judgment to take the country to war carries with it a duty throughout the conflict to decide that military force remains in the national interest. As with any other statute, Congress is responsible for monitoring what it has set in motion. In the midst of war, there are no grounds for believing that the President?s judgment for continuing the war is superior to the collective judgment of elected representatives. Congress has both the constitutional authority and the responsibility to retain control and recalibrate nation policy whenever necessary.
...
In debating whether to adopt statutory restrictions on the Iraq War, Members of Congress want to be assured that legislative limitations do not jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. forces. Understandably, every Member wants to respect and honor the performance of dedicated American soldiers. However, the overarching issue for lawmakers is always this: Is a military operation in the nation?s interest? If not, placing more U.S. soldiers in harm?s way is not a proper response. Members of the House and the Senate cannot avoid the question or defer to the President. Lawmakers always decide the scope of military operations, either by accepting the commitment as it is or by altering its direction and purpose. In a democratic republic that decision legitimately and constitutionally resides in Congress.footnote: 1. The Constitution Project, Deciding to Use Force Abroad: War Powers in a System of Checks and Balances (2005).