{"id":11091,"date":"2007-06-11T16:10:43","date_gmt":"2007-06-11T20:10:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/11091.html"},"modified":"2007-06-11T16:10:43","modified_gmt":"2007-06-11T20:10:43","slug":"did-dems-play-the-war-funding-debate-like-a-stradivarius","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/did-dems-play-the-war-funding-debate-like-a-stradivarius\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Dems play the war funding debate &#8216;like a Stradivarius&#8217;?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Election analyst Stuart Rothenberg watched congressional Dems struggle recently with how they would fund the war in Iraq &#8212; with\/without a withdrawal timeline, with\/without benchmarks, with\/without a date certain, etc. &#8212; and <a href=\"http:\/\/rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com\/2007\/06\/democratic-leaders-on-capitol-hill-are.html\">concluded<\/a> that the party may not have gotten what it wanted, but it came out ahead anyway.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill played the issue like a Stradivarius. They forced a vote on a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, putting Republicans on record supporting the status quo and President Bush, but allowed a subsequent vote to &#8220;fund the troops.&#8221; That gave their own Members from swing districts the opportunity to demonstrate their support for the military.<\/p>\n<p>From a purely political point of view, Democrats had their cake and ate it too. Yes, the war is unpopular, and opposing it is a no-brainer. But the one thing Democrats need to avoid is looking like themselves during the 1970s and 1980s &#8212; weak and unwilling to support America&#8217;s men and women in uniform. Yes, they&#8217;ve spent the past few years speaking the right words on national security and the armed forces, but if they had refused to pass a spending bill, they would have at the very least opened themselves to attack from the GOP.<\/p>\n<p>So, in ignoring the demands of the party&#8217;s left, Congressional leaders have kept their party right where they want it &#8212; against the war but also against terrorists and for the troops.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This seems flawed. As <a href=\"http:\/\/electioncentral.tpmcafe.com\/blog\/electioncentral\/2007\/jun\/11\/rothenberg_congressional_dems_playing_iraq_just_right\">Greg Sargent explained<\/a> very well, Rothenberg is predicating his analysis on the notion that fighting Bush over war policy would be awful for Dems: &#8220;Why are we concluding that voters would automatically have seen it as &#8216;weak&#8217; or as against the troops if Dems had stuck to their guns, as it were, and had continued to insist that a withdrawal timetable be tied to funding? After all, majorities were telling pollsters that they <i>wanted<\/i> Dems to do this &#8212; that they wanted the war to be funded only on the condition that a withdrawal date be fixed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>But Rothenberg really gets into trouble describing the political consequences for the Dems.<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nRothenberg sees Dems emerging from the fight smelling like roses.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>While a bit more confrontation with the president probably wouldn&#8217;t have gotten Congressional Democrats into trouble and would have pleased the party&#8217;s left, the Democratic House and Senate leaders wisely played things safe by allowing a bill to pass that Bush could sign.<\/p>\n<p>Why take a chance alienating swing voters when the party already made its point by sending the president a deadline bill that he vetoed?<\/p>\n<p>Anti-war critics of the Democratic Congressional leadership have nowhere else to go, both now and in November 2008.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Even if we put aside the argument that the left will stick with Dems no matter what &#8212; hardly an uncontroversial contention &#8212; Rothenberg seems to be missing something. He insists the Dems won&#8217;t pay a political price for capitulating. I&#8217;d argue they already have.<\/p>\n<p>Less than a week ago, a national <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2007\/06\/04\/AR2007060401230.html\">WaPo\/ABC poll<\/a>, conducted shortly after Congress gave Bush the war-spending bill he wanted, showed congressional Dems&#8217; popularity taking a sharp hit. In April, when Dems passed a withdrawal timeline, 54% of Americans approved of their job performance, while 44% disapproved. Almost immediately after Dems capitulated and passed war funding without restrictions, those numbers reversed, 44% approve, 49% disapprove. <\/p>\n<p>The poll was quite illustrative. Dems enjoyed modest leads over Bush on handling every major policy issue, but the number of people who responded &#8220;neither&#8221; is at or near all-time highs. People know Republicans are wrong, and they&#8217;re disappointed Dems aren&#8217;t fighting Bush more aggressively.<\/p>\n<p>Democrats &#8220;had their cake and ate it too&#8221;? They &#8220;played the issue like a Stradivarius&#8221;? It looks like Rothenberg is the only one who thinks so.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Election analyst Stuart Rothenberg watched congressional Dems struggle recently with how they would fund the war in Iraq &#8212; with\/without a withdrawal timeline, with\/without benchmarks, with\/without a date certain, etc. &#8212; and concluded that the party may not have gotten what it wanted, but it came out ahead anyway. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill played [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}