Posted on 02/13/2007 2:22:56 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Rep. Joe Donnelly (news, bio, voting record) is one of a clutch of freshmen Democrats who snagged victories over Republican incumbents last fall amid public discontent over the war in Iraq. Now, as his party prepares to register its opposition to President Bush's plan to boost troop levels, Donnelly is on the fence.
"The most important part of this to me is standing up for the troops and making sure we have full funding for them," Donnelly said Tuesday, after a weekend meeting with veterans' groups and constituents back home in his conservative north-central Indiana district. "I haven't made up my mind yet."
The concerns of members like Donnelly are behind Democrats' strategy for this week's Iraq debate, which was carefully calibrated to bar votes on a GOP alternative that could expose a potentially messy divide within Democratic ranks over whether to cut off or restrict funding for troops on the ground.
Determined to send an unambiguous and bipartisan message of disapproval for the troop buildup, Democrats moved Monday night to block Republicans from proposing any alternative, including one that would have guaranteed funding for U.S. forces in Iraq.
The approach reflects the dilemma facing Democrats on the war, which figured prominently in their rise to power. There is broad support for the Democratic-written resolution opposing Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. But many rank-and-file members — particularly moderate newcomers who rode to Congress on a wave of public discontent about Iraq — are wary of casting any vote that could be construed as ending funding for the mission.
Army Lt. "General (David) Petraeus is over there, and I want to give him every opportunity to succeed and all the funding and resources that would make that possible," Donnelly said, but he added that he was concerned that a troop increase could amount to "simply providing 21,000 more targets to the Iraqis."
House Republicans assailed Democrats Tuesday for barring them from offering their own Iraq resolution, accusing them of stifling votes on a vital issue.
Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record) of California, the senior Rules Committee Republican, said the constraints rendered the 36-hour debate that opened Tuesday morning "really little more than a joke."
Democratic leaders had said earlier that Republicans would have a chance to offer their own measure, but quickly reversed course, and the leadership-controlled Rules Committee voted Monday night to deny the minority the option.
"It became clear to us that the only way we could give to the American people a very clear indication of where the Congress stood as it related to the president's proposal was this process," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland said.
The tightly controlled approach to running the House is becoming a habit with Democrats, who complained bitterly during their dozen years in the minority about similar Republican tactics. When Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the Republican leader, groused about it on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday, Hoyer shot back sarcastically, "Poor John."
On Iraq, the new House leaders' strategy is particularly important to holding together a newly shaped Democratic Caucus that includes several moderate newcomers who unseated Republicans amid public dissatisfaction with the war, but whose conservative constituents might balk at the notion of setting deadlines or spending constraints on troops in harm's way.
It also echoes the tack Senate Democrats took earlier this month, when they sought to head off a Republican-written measure declaring that Congress should not cut off funding for troops in the field.
Rep. Ed Perlmutter (news, bio, voting record), D-Colo., a first-termer who said he plans to back his party's measure rejecting the troop increase, said he would be inclined to support a resolution committing Congress to funding U.S. troops.
"I don't want to cut off funding. Our troops are performing magnificently," Perlmutter said. But he added that a funding debate was premature, and said Republicans were trying to "trip us up" by proposing such a measure now, realizing there is "no consensus on funding" among Democrats
"What we are trying to achieve as a caucus is unanimity. We're pretty spread out in terms of where we are," said another freshman Democrat, Rep. Michael Arcuri (news, bio, voting record) of New York. "We feel that we want to do what is best for the troops, but we have some differences in terms of how you do that."
Will Marshall of the center-left Democratic Leadership Council has consulted with freshman Democrats on Iraq. He said there is "broad unity on the fact that we have to start winding the occupation down, not doubling down on it, but after that, I think it's harder to find consensus."
The dilemma is especially profound for newer members.
"They're in marginal districts, competitive districts, almost by definition, so most of them would be leery of voting to cut off funding for the troops. It would be too easy to be caricatured by the Republicans as turning against the troops in the middle of a mission," Marshall said.
Democrats concede that by flexing their muscles to constrain the minority, they risk becoming what they criticized during last year's elections.
"We're going to run a fair House, but we're not going to be naive about it." said Stacey Farnen Bernards, Hoyer's spokeswoman. "We're just trying to give the American people a clear debate and a clear answer" on Iraq.
For Democrats like Donnelly, however, this week's vote is more complex. The Indianan said he's been consulting with other wavering members of his party, although he wouldn't name any.
"We're all trying to talk to each other and work through it," Donnelly said.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Julie Hirschfeld Davis has covered Congress and the White House since 1997.
We Americans want to stabilize the Iraqi government and get out! Is that clear enough for you!
That was a very telling statement and utterance on Steny's part.
This whole "debate" is a farce and a chance for the politicians to preen and prance. Watch for Joe Biden and Teddy boy to put on an academy award performance.
More NONBINDING B...S... from the demwits.
"I don't want to cut off funding. Our troops are performing magnificently," Perlmutter said. But he added that a funding debate was premature, and said Republicans were trying to "trip us up" by proposing such a measure now, realizing there is "no consensus on funding" among Democrats."
Perlmutter has only one question to answer. How do the RATS plan on winning in Iraq? Without that answer, they should STFU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.