Even those who voted for Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota probably expected it.

David Sirota also has this to say this morning:

In the Washington Post's solid writeup of the debate over Iraq in the House, a faction of Democrats continues to attack the very Election 2006 mandate they were vaulted into office on: opposition to the war. Justifying her opposition to bills that would stop President Bush's military escalation, we get this from South Dakota's lone House member:

"I don't think we should be overreacting to public opinion polls."

I give Herseth credit - her use of "overreacting" deviously implies that there are just a few very recent polls here and there showing negligible opposition to the war, and that Serious People in Congress should never "overreact" to the supposed fleeting whims of the American people.
...
And just a few weeks ago, a CNN poll found that a strong majority wants Congress to cut off funding for President Bush's escalation, while the Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans want a timeline for withdrawal, want Congress to do what it takes to stop Bush's escalation, and strongly support a plan to force the White House to adhere to strict troop training standards - all positions Herseth and her small faction of "conservative" colleagues oppose in the name of faux "centrism" and "not overreacting."

BAGHDAD -- The new U.S. commander in Iraq acknowledged today that U.S.-led forces could not protect all Iraqis from "thugs with no soul" bent on reigniting sectarian warfare.

"Any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said at his first news conference since assuming the command last month.

Political negotiations were vital and would require reaching out to "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them," Petraeus said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient."

The Democrats didn't get us out of Vietnam, either.

I see the Republicans being more likely than the Democrats to end the war. At some point the Republican Party will realize that 2008 will be a repeat of 2006 and that they'll lose another 30 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate and 3% of party registration.

The Republican and Conservative brand is being dragged down by the Bush-Cheney, stubborn insistance on sticking to disaster.  The war party, the incompetent party, they can't even run a war right, let alone the government.

i don't think anyone seriously believed that the moment nancy pelosi was sworn in, all our troops would leave iraq, unless you were under a physician's care. realistically, we didn't get in there overnight, we aren't leaving overnight.

Lets run the math.

Lets say 60% of all voters in 2006 voted for Dems.

Lets say 40% of those voters voted to end the war.

That 40% would represent the 25 - 30% of America that is Liberal/Dem base.

And it would certainly qualify as a Substantial Amount of the 60% of people who voted Democrat.

66% to be exact.  Very substantial.

But it doesn't qualify as the voting group that swung the election to the Democrats.  One would be stupid to think it was.

It was the 20% of people who voted Dem this time around.  Isolate that subgroup, and do your exit poll, and get back to us.

thanks!

Tester ran on the corruption issue.

McKaskill won big points on Stem Cell.

Casey won by not being a dick and running against someone who was a dick.

Webb might have won on the war issue, but then there was that whole macaca thing too!