The people are leading; will leaders follow?

The latest national poll produced lopsided results. If only policy makers were with the majority.

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the war began, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Six in 10 Americans surveyed say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, and more than three in four say that things are going badly there — including nearly half who say things are going very badly, the poll found. […]

President Bush’s approval ratings remain near the lowest point of his more than six years in office. Thirty percent of poll respondents approve of the job he’s doing overall, while 63 percent disapprove. Majorities of those polled disapprove of Mr. Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, of foreign policy, of immigration, of the economy and of the campaign against terrorism.

Asked their opinion about current conditions in Iraq, more than three out of four Americans believe the war is going badly. The same number, 76%, believe the president’s so-called surge is either failing or making circumstances worse. Dems are in great shape — asked who they trust to make decisions about the war, Bush or Dems, we win 51% to 33%. The Democratic policy — funding with a timetable for withdrawal — enjoys 63% support.

Given this, Dems should be feeling pretty good about their position in the debate over funding. Oh wait, I forgot, they just gave in to the guy whose policy enjoys no public support at all.

The point of this isn’t to do yet another post complaining about Dems’ inexplicable retreat yesterday afternoon, but I have to admit, their reasoning for backing down from this fight just doesn’t make any sense.

[S]enior Democrats and other officials said that by early this week they had concluded there was no alternative but to give ground to President Bush despite their view that he had mishandled the war and needed to be put under tighter Congressional rein.

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

I’ll just quote Greg Sargent here, who wrote what I was thinking.

Oooooooooooooo, scary! If we didn’t give Bush his way, the White House would have criticized us!

Seriously, the Times account dovetails with what we’ve heard from multiple Dem staffers. And it has to be said that this is, like, soooooooooo June 2006. Recall that last spring many Dems were terrified of taking on the GOP and the White House over Iraq because they worried that the Republicans would tell the electorate an irresistible story: Dems are weak, and Republicans are strong. When Dems finally realized that Republicans would tell this story no matter what they did, they started telling the story their way: The war in Iraq is a disaster; it has made us weaker; Dems want to end it, and Republicans don’t. The rest is history. Dems won the argument.

Now Dems appear to have let their own worries about the potential story that Republicans will tell — Dems are on vacation while the troops are wanting! — largely shape their course of action here. Sure, you want to game out what the opposition will do. But Dems, Republicans are going to keep telling the story this way no matter what you do. Indeed, the President just reminded everyone at today’s presser that some Dems didn’t want to support the troops — even though the Dem leadership has already agreed to give him his no-timelines funding. Why not start by deciding what the right policy is, and then tell your story as forcefully as you can? Dems can win arguments, as 2006 showed.

I’ll just add this: it’s time for Dems to start thinking like the majority party. Twelve years is a long time to be out of power, it probably starts to do damage to the psyche. Dems need to get over it and start realizing the position they’re in. Just read the darn poll.

OT, but worth noting: Steve Clemons has a piece up at http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/ that deserves wider circulation, titled “Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush’s Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush.”
The heart of this piece states that:

“[a] White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an “end run strategy” around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney’s team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran’s nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf — which just became significantly larger — as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.”

  • It’s more than that — Bush’s approval rating actually is at its lowest ever and on its way down further, as seen by the trendline at Pollster (and other places). So yeah, the democrats caved in because they were afraid that they were going to be criticized by someone as popular as gonorrhea. What bullshit.

  • I’d like to know how many of our illustrious leaders got calls from the goons at AIPAC.

  • i was livid yesterday over their caving in, but maybe there is a strategy here that they aren’t telling us. our democratic senator, who was one of the strong advocates of the spending bill that bush vetoed, has said he will vote against this measure. i believe our democratic congressman is going to vote against it as well. now, suppose that enough democrats and some more progressive (?) republicans do that, and the “new” bill ends up being defeated. that would make the democrat’s position even stronger than before.

  • Word is all three of VT’s congressional reps will oppose the cave in. Pat Bernie and Peter rule. Is any other state’s ENTIRE DELEGATION doing the right thing?

    VERMONT RULES!!! FOLLOW US AMERICA!!!

  • Just like an abused spouse, the Democrats are giving Bush (and his bully pulpit and White House propaganda machine), one more chance on the Iraq war. (one more shot at futility)

    Here’s the problem for the Democrats: Continuing the abused spouse metaphor, if the Democrats don’t put an end to it this fall, the left-wing of the party is going to pack their bags and head for the bus station and out of town.

  • I’m not sure the bill put forward by Democrats is necessarily a “capitulation”. A stronger bill would have been swiftly vetoed by a rigid Bush. Then, he would accuse Dems of being “anti-troop.”
    Its also possible that Dems are just looking forward to 2008. Iraq is the chain pulling the GOP down. It is Bush’s war, after all. Letting him keep ownership of it might be the best thing for Democrats in the long run.

  • Makes me wonder what kind of ear mark bribes or vote swaps could make The Dems leadership vote against what the majority of people want them to do. There is no kickback to a vote for this funding bill only the downslide. Bush is holding the troops hostage to get funding for the war profiteers. The troops are screamming out help us get out of here, I don’t want to die for nothing. The public is raging with support for the Dems to block funding without a plan for withdrawal. The president and his policies are at an all time low. Do the dems need to be hit in the head with a 2×4 like a jackass to get the point. Sounds like someone is getting bribed to me to defy logic and vote for this funding bill and I’m making a list.

  • “A stronger bill would have been swiftly vetoed by a rigid Bush. Then, he would accuse Dems of being “anti-troop.””

    That is a given, but so what? It ain’t gonna fly in the current environment even with the MSM doing all it can to help out the GOP on this. The public IS ahead of the politicians and, more importantly, the Press.

    I think I spoke my piece on this in the comments to the CB posts yesterday. Time for the Dems to lead.

  • So CB, are you adjusting your position on this issue, as stated in your ‘game of chicken’ post yesterday?

  • The thing that pisses me off is the inclusion of the minimum wage issue.

    WTF does that have to do with Iraq?

  • Racerx–I wonder why they included a lot of the items they did. It would seem to me that for pure political purposes it would be best to vote on the war funding separately, the Katrina funding separately and the minimum wage separately. Really put the GOP on the spot with no wiggle room on each item. My guess on the minimum wage item is that it does not have enough votes to pass on its own without some other horrendous attachments that would be made to it, so the Dems decided to include it as an attachement to a bill that most of the GOP will not vote against because the Dems really want it passed without haveing to attach tax cuts or other itmes the GOP would otherwise add to it..

  • CB,

    Yesterday you wrote an cautiously optimistic entry about what had happen. Today it’s doom and gloom. Who’s the real CB?

    As you mention yesterday, we Democrats didn’t have the votes. We didn’t have them yesterday and we don’t have them today. Opinion polls are nice, but where are the votes? We can’t break a filibuster and we can’t overide a veto.

  • “Opinion polls are nice, but where are the votes? We can’t break a filibuster and we can’t overide a veto.”

    Dems Don’t Need To. They provided a full funding bill. The money was provided. The President chose to veto it and refuse funding that he needs to continue his war. The Dems have another option–sitting tight and doing nothing. The current funds run out this summer. Without the funds, the troops will need to be brought home. They would be brought home safely regardless. The Dems can tell Bush that due to his obstinence, and his direct opposition to the will of the American people, that he can have full funding with the timelines and benchmarks they provided, or he will get nothing and he and the military need to plan on withdrawal this summer.

  • If this were really representative government, it seems to me that the votes in Congress should be representative of the opinions of the American people. Since that isn’t what we see, the conclusion I reach is that there are members of the House and Senate who are not voting in accordance with the majority views of the constituents they represent. So, whose views are they representing, just their own? The views of the party with which they are affiliated?

    If this is their idea of representative government, maybe we need to shove them to the side and have a national referendum specific to this issue (I know people think the 2006 election was that referendum, but some people apparently did not get that message).

    Oh, that’s right – if our politicians aren’t to be trusted to make decisions about the war, then for sure us common folk won’t get that chance, either.

  • Jesus. The country is down on it’s knees begging, pleading for some LEADERSHIP, and this is the best the Dem’s can come up with? Once again, craven political calculations trump personal beliefs and the best interests of the country these people have sworn to serve.

    After all the noise from this congress about the dangers of Bush’s open-ended war policy a vote for this funding bill is immoral, deeply hypocritical and weak, weak, WEAK!

    At this point, I no longer wonder why so many people have trouble respecting the left.

  • I noticed this over at MyDD: 54% of Iowa Republicans favor pulling out of Iraq in 6 months…and another 9% are “undecided” about that option. There (often) isn’t even a major partisan divide once you get outside DC — more evidence that the Dems have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • We keep hearing, day-in and day-out, “get the money to the troops in the field” from ReThug legislators and the Usurper-In-Chief and various zipper-heads in the media surrounding the appropriations bill to continue the U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq currently being “debated” on the House floor. I cannot help but wonder, how much of this $100 Billion+ bill goes to the troops and to their families? And how much of it goes to Halliburton, KBR, & Blackwater and others? As I’ve said before, to hear the Usurper-In-Chief speak, you’d think that the money would be directly-deposited into the troops’ bank accounts.

    Where are the Reich Wing goose-steppers (bloggers) on this issue? I’m sure they favor the anational pirate-profiteers robbing our treasury with “Dick” Cheney’s aiding and abetting.

  • I’ll just add this: it’s time for Dems to start thinking like the majority party.

    Really? Who’s going to support them? The 70% of Americans who are want an end to war?

    Too late for that.

  • I’m so disappointed, almost ready for a third party. I watch debates on the senate floor, then watch them mingle while the vote is taken. What I see is a huge group of politicians and no statesman in sight. It’s just a big game to them and 10 of our kids die every day over there. It’s enough to make you cry (real tears not Boehner tears).

  • I have the same concerns as Racerx # 12. The Dems should have left all the extras out of that bill. Putting them in automatically lowered the sincerity of the thing.

    Also, if CB is having second thoughts, it’s only natural. All of us must accept the reality of the process, but it ain’t easy. It’s not easy for Tom Cleaver. He said so. Well, he said so after suggesting the bill include language about greasing Republicans with .44 Magnums and rusty knives and pissing on the graves of their children and pets, and sewing their property with salt and turning the Reagan Library into a public toilet and making a human sacrifice of the entire populations of Alabama, Virginia and Georgia and so on, but…

    (Kidding.)

    It ain’t easy.

  • I agree with George Arndt’s comments about the Dems’ caving. Letting Bush dig a bigger hole for himself is part of funding his war. Since the Dems have only a slight majority, they wouldn’t be able to override any vetoes. Check out the approval ratings for Congress and you’ll see they’re not very popular, nor have they been. If Congress slows down government, then it will be like a revisitation of what happened with Newt Gingrich where he pushed things too far. It took a long time for Congress to stop the funding for Vietnam.

    I’d rather see what would have happened if Congress had dug its heels in. With our system of government it’s very hard for Congress to dictate war-time strategy. Once approval is granted, the President has the reins. Congress then looks bad for stopping funds, unless the public opinion is hugely against the war. I still see revisionist history of what happened in Vietnam with hawkish Republicans accusing Democrats as being the reason for our “loss.”

    Does anybody really think the situation in Iraq will be vastly improved come September? At that time the Republicans will have to start jumping ship. Maybe Bush and his team will find a way to couch things as having improved over there. Bush and his cronies created this mess. He plans on passing it to the next president. Why throw all your chips in the pot now if you’re the Democratic leadership, when 4 months from now you can really nail them?

    It’s also possible the Democratic leadership is incompetent. If Al Gore is such a great candidate, why didn’t he beat Bush beyond the shadow of a doubt originally? It’s not like we didn’t have advance notice of how bad a second term with Bush would be. Was John Kerry (New England Democrat) really the best we could put up for a candidate?

  • anne @16 – you don’t want national referendums, trust me. you don’t want to go there.

  • Comments are closed.