The Politics of Capitulation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 01:48:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum notes the falloff in support of the Democratic Congress in the wake of the Iraq Supplemental and joins the extreme prosyletizers:

This is water under the bridge at this point, but I think congressional Dems blew it by caving in to Bush on the war supplemental so quickly. . . If Democrats want to be taken seriously on national security, they need to be serious about national security. Sticking to their guns on Iraq is the place to start. Hesitation and indecision never won the public's support for anything.

Still, Kevin makes a curious and I think, inaccurate, statement:

[Dems] decided to wait and hope for some bipartisan cover later in the year. They'll likely get it, though not, I suspect, in huge quantities. My guess is that maybe 20% of congressional Republicans will join them in voting to fund a gradual drawdown when September rolls around. If Democrats are willing to stand their ground and fight, that's probably enough.

Hmmm. I think that is simply fantasy. Who are these "20% of Republicans?" And evenif they exist, what of a Presidential veto Kevin? 20% of Republicans is NOT enough for a veto proof majority. When will folks deal with reality here? the NOT funding after a date certain option is the only way to end the Iraq Debacle.

< What Can Cheney Be Thinking Today? | Joseph and Valerie Wilson's Statement on Libby Sentencing >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

The Politics of Capitulation | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The debate is moving in your direction (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 01:57:21 PM EST

The "veto proof majority" "strategy" is finally dying on the vine, though there are some dead enders who continue to trumpet it.

A certain dead ender (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:17:23 PM EST

is sticking with 'the base is a bunch of idiot liberals' argument and still waiting for the 'sensible Republicans' to come riding in and save the day.

He's winning the idiot liberals over in droves!


: Now That's Not Fair (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by talex on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:13:33 PM EST

I didn't say 'the base is a bunch of idiot liberals'. But there were two posters who prompted my post who Don't Understand the Political System.
And of course they are part of the 10% drop in support. Big Surprise!

"dead enders... (none / 0) (#15)
by talex on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:59:55 PM EST

who continue to trumpet it."

"Votes for the sake of having votes doesn't really help us. What we need are votes that show we are gaining in strength. So we need to be thoughtful," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a leading war critic who sponsored legislation last month to mandate withdrawal by next spring.
"But it is incredibly important that the debate continue in June and July. It keeps the pressure on the White House, and it keeps the pressure on Republicans to break with the president," he said.
"At a minimum, we need to be building ... for a showdown in September."

Yep - McGovern - a real dead ender. Trumpeted here as a hero with what, 171 votes for his bill.

But now let's see everyone here tear him down for his quote.

Whose first?


Repub strategy is already shifting (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Alien Abductee on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:36:06 PM EST

ground in anticipation of the Dem pressure for defunding/withdrawal planned for over the summer and fall. Instead of insisting all is going well and if we just stay the course we'll have success, they're going to drop their Tinkerbell strategy as their main approach and try to put on the mantle of realists: Yes, well, it IS a terrible mess, but pulling out is going to make it far far worse. Yes, you can force withdrawal, but realists agree that if we do we'll have to come back, and under worse conditions. Like Dan Senor argues today.

Dems had better be considering how to deal with this, because it's a plausible argument that one-ups their realist assessment and will tend to cut their slow pressure strategy off at the knees.

Sick and Tired (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by koshembos on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:02:23 PM EST

There were no election with a Democrats losing; you reading a poll with gray glasses. This is quite ridiculous. caving fast is not much of a merit, but letting Bush toy with soldiers life beyond he is already doing, is just terrible.

I am sick and tired by your dogged repetition of the same comment ad nauseum and declaring every deviation from your thinking a crime against humanity.

Leaving your distortions aside (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:10:06 PM EST

is anyone forcing you to read this?


andgarden (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:44:44 PM EST

I think what he is saying is that he disagrees with BTD.

Anything wrong with that?


Yes Jim (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:01:27 PM EST

Disagreeing with me is a crime against humanity. I have written that in every post.


: as you say, heh (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:58:39 AM EST

I'm responding to this part (none / 0) (#10)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:50:42 PM EST

not capitulation (none / 0) (#2)
by atlanta lawyer on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:01:10 PM EST

The growing cynic in me, sees not capitulation, but political stragegy. Democrats would have had a significant political battle spending significant capital to defund the war. It would have, been, in some ways, risky (though I think, sucessful in the short term.) Obviously, they have lost ground from the "capitulation" but the upside is that the Republican "strategy" will continue to rule the day, and Iraq will almost certainly get worse and at best stay the same. Then, as we get closer to election time, we can still be blaming everything on the Repubs. If Democratic policy takes over now, the outcome is uncertain, and Dem's will have to take more responsiblity for the results.

All that being said, Democrats and Republican are guilty of the same crap. They get elected on a platform then immediately start thinking about the next election instead of the last. I just wish politicians cared half as much about governing well as they do about getting reelected. Our troops need real solutions, and they need them now. I think the Democrats caved in, not primarily b/c they don't have the guts, but they're saving their guts for the most politically opportune time in terms of getting reelected, rather than the time at which the policy change is most urgent and would better serve our country. But I suppose I'm politically naive.

: Political capital (none / 0) (#29)
by sphealey on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 07:48:53 AM EST

> Democrats would have had a significant
> political battle spending significant
> capital to defund the war.
Businesses spend money to invest in capital goods to grow larger and stronger. This idea that somehow you "spend capital" by taking strong, principled stands and fighting for them, and that this is a bad thing, is pernicious.
Particularly when you think you are going to lose anyway. What voters really hate is seeing Democrats act like meek guinea pigs when they are in a losing position rather than standing up and fighting.
sPh

By refusing to take a stand they jeopardized 2008 (none / 0) (#4)
by jerry on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:27:55 PM EST

If Dems in Congress had taken a stand it would have been far easier for our candidates to take that stand as a matter of course.

Now we can anticipate the many dodgy questions prompting the "I voted for it before I voted against it" type weasels.

Instead of allowing candidates to focus on foreign policy AFTER Iraq, they now have to focus on Iraq itself and they will be forced to play the "I do too support the troops" game that they lose just by being asked the question.

So all in all a craven, "reelect me, it's all about me" strategy, and it's no wonder the public sees through that.

Rereading needed? (none / 0) (#8)
by Lacy on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 03:42:35 PM EST

Your understanding problem seems to derive from the fact that Kevin Drum was not talking about ending the Iraq war, but about the drop in public confidence in the new Congress and prospects for restoring it.

So there was no reason to speak of presidential vetoes. But that aside, GOP leaders have themselves suggested many members would bail on GWB if there's no improvement by September. 20% may well be a reality. Drum did not address that Democrats plus 20% of the GOP was not a veto proof number because that was not what he was talking about.

Rereading (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:00:22 PM EST

If Democrats are willing to stand their ground and fight, that's probably enough.

"Probably enough" for what dear commenter? Please be more careful when you come to criticize. I have a thin skin . . .


Rereading definitely needed by BTD (none / 0) (#21)
by Lacy on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:06:28 PM EST

"Probably enough" to accomplish what Drum was dscribing, an improving of the fading image for the new Democratic Congress, the issue he discussed and which you apparently didn't quite connect.

But really, if you're going to berate commenters who point out your errors, you really do need a thicker skin.


Heh (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:20:28 PM EST

This is too funny - "an improving of the fading image for the new Democratic Congress"

Cept it was NOT fading till they blew it on Iraq.

Try again. BTW, did you read the REST of the post? Especially the end?


: Polluting the water (none / 0) (#28)
by Lacy on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 06:50:00 AM EST

Sorry, but the comment that the new Congress' image "was not fading till they blew it on Iraq" doesn't support your intransigent position. It even suggests you now see what Drum was actually addressing. You can mock the words "image" or "aproval", but in doing so, you indict yourself, because that was Drum's topic. Why not maintain credibility and just admit it?
And yes, some readers and commenters read to the end to see the closing lines:
Quote
If Democrats want to be taken seriously on national security, they need to be serious about national security. Sticking to their guns on Iraq is the place to start. Hesitation and indecision never won the public's support for anything.
So from beginning to end, Drum's piece was about the Democratic Congress' approval and image, and you misunderstood. Maybe you should ask Jeralyn for an opinion. You're polluting the waters of my favorite pond.

Absolutely Correct (none / 0) (#17)
by talex on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:26:28 PM EST

The entire theme of his piece was 'public support'. Nowhere does Drum mention vetoes or a majority being required for anything.

This proves that all too often people read into an article that which they want to see. This may not be down on purpose but it is just the way the mind works.

The same happens in verbal communication. People hear what they want to hear and filter out the rest. Which is why it was easy for Bush to manipulate the public into believing that Saddam had something to do with 911.


Speaking of only hearing what you want (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:33:58 PM EST

Did you read this?

Or is this another one of those "Glenn Greenwald agrees with me" moments for you?


Anything in this? (none / 0) (#19)
by dkmich on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 05:53:17 PM EST

Dems blew it by caving in to Bush on the war supplemental so quickly. . .

I'm curious about the use of "so quickly". Do you think that means it will be just fine to cave as long as they do it later?


Well yeah exactly (none / 0) (#22)
by talex on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:06:29 PM EST

he goes onto say:

It may well be that they couldn't have held out forever, but I think there was a big chunk of the public that at least wanted to see them fight harder.

Of course that is just speculation on his part. The drop in the polls could also be brought about by the publics not understanding why the Dems are going about things as they are.

When it come to the technical aspect of government most people are pretty clueless.


Politicians are not the government. (none / 0) (#27)
by dkmich on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 05:20:59 AM EST

The government is the institutions and civil servants who work in them. The poltiicians and their appointees are the people who continually FIU.


Brilliant! (none / 0) (#31)
by talex on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 09:52:30 AM EST

I never knew that The President and Congress were not the government. What were the founders of this country thinking?!!!


Nothing close to what you usually do. (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Wed Jun 06, 2007 at 10:02:12 AM EST

They were interested in principle.


When elected officials and the government (none / 0) (#33)
by dkmich on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:25:53 PM EST

get co-mingled, it makes the system inept when it isn't. That is how Ronald Reagan got away with talking down government. The anger and dis-satisfaction people felt wasn't with our institutions. It was with the politicians, and Reagan slid it off him and onto what is necessary in a civilized society. Using government and elos together is like hooking Sadam and 911.


: AND, don't be so bloody literal. (none / 0) (#34)
by dkmich on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:32:20 PM EST

Confusing the elos with the office they hold is also another way to label government as bad. Government is a system. Our system of government is good. The people who run it on the other hand royally suck, and they shouldn't be allowed to blame government for what they do. There is and must remain a distinction between government and the people in it.

Not Sure (none / 0) (#20)
by talex on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:02:18 PM EST

what part of the paragraph you're referring to. If it has to do with 'public support' then yeah he reinforces that point again at the very end.


: Sure you are sure. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:38:07 PM EST

Quoting the Drum Article (none / 0) (#23)
by Lacy on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 06:20:42 PM EST

The issue Kevin Drum brought up has been questioned so here's his intro which makes it clear:

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL DOWN....The Washington Post reports that approval ratings for Congress are down. This is hardly a surprise, since approval ratings are almost always high at the beginning of a new Congress or a new presidency (a majority voted for the new folks, after all), and they inevitably decline a bit as reality sets in and the revolution doesn't come. However, the Post seems to think there's more to it:

Just 39 percent said they approve of the job Congress is doing, down from 44 percent in April, when the new Congress was about 100 days into its term. More significant, approval of congressional Democrats dropped 10 percentage points over that same period, from 54 percent to 44 percent.


Slightly OT, but (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:43:21 PM EST

Bobby Kennedy was shot 39 years ago today, June 5, 1968.

"I do not run for the Presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I'm obliged to do all I can."
--Robert F. Kennedy, March 16, 1968.

Hesitation and indecision never won the public's support for anything

Todays Democrats in Congress could take that to heart, and choose their course as if it is the last political act they will ever perform.

: The "last act" (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 04:51:03 PM EST

is the one the history books will remember them for.
Then again, they could continue trying to make the case that the expedient and pragmatic thing to do is the expedient and pragmatic thing to do.
And the history books could remember them for that.

1968 (none / 0) (#25)
by diogenes on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:02:40 PM EST

Humphrey was the candidate of the war debacle party, with the baggage of the Chicago convention and national peace marches, and he NEARLY won.
The 2008 election isn't over yet.