Posted on 05/23/2007 7:31:39 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
The Democrats Blink By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
May 22, 2007
Iraq: When Democratic leaders dropped their demand for a withdrawal timeline this week, it was more than being outmaneuvered in negotiations. They left the president in firm possession of the moral high ground.
Only a short time ago, Democrats were cockily promising they would send the president a pullout bill as many times as it would take, until finally he would have to relent. Just last Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were insisting on a timeline in negotiations with the White House on a war funding bull.
But the tables have now been turned on congressional Democrats. All of a sudden, it is they who face a deadline: If Congress does not manage to pass a war spending bill that the president is willing to sign before the Memorial Day recess, Democrats become vulnerable to the charge of refusing to fund our combat troops.
And so, faced with the president's famous "stubbornness" (so often portrayed as a character flaw by liberal Democrats and the media establishment), Democratic leaders have been forced to blink, dropping their insistence that war funding be linked to a troop withdrawal timeline — even a nonbinding one.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and others who pander to the party's liberal base are blasting the Pelosi-Reid cave- in. "Congress should send the same bill back to him again and again until he realizes he has no choice but to start bringing our troops home," Edwards said in a statement.
Democrats now have plans for a bill amenable to the president that would fund our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan up to the end of the fiscal year, a little more than four months from now. A minimum wage increase is likely to be included in the legislation.
This loss of nerve on the part of Reid and Pelosi amounts to a significant blow to Democrats for at least two reasons:
• Disunity in the Democrats' ranks. After portraying the congressional elections that brought them into power last year as a referendum on the Iraq War, those in charge of the new Democratic Congress cannot deliver a withdrawal, and have no stomach for repeated presidential vetoes of their funding cut-off bills.
Consequently, many of the 73 Democratic House members who make up California Rep. Maxine Waters' Out of Iraq Caucus have already begun to revolt against the Democratic leadership, announcing they will not vote for a bill not containing a deadline.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, also from California and a caucus co-founder, warned that "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it."
Hard-core war opponents in Congress may soon be heard attacking Democratic leaders as much as they do the White House.
• Defeat is not a winning issue. Confronted with a president who will not back down in his support for victory in Iraq, it is now obvious the Democrats who run Congress are afraid to take him on toe-to-toe.
For all their rhetoric during last year's campaign about it being the will of the American people to cut and run, Pelosi and Reid were unwilling to make an explicit attempt to use Congress' power of the purse to follow through on their promises.
With Congress' poll ratings falling below 30% and registering lower than President Bush's, Pelosi and Reid may doubt the American public would be with them in trying to force a pullout.
It leaves the president looking committed and determined in his beliefs, while congressional leaders appear afraid to stand behind their own policies. Meanwhile, the liberal rank and file grow increasingly restless.
If nothing else, Pelosi's and Reid's concession gives Bush some political breathing space as America races against time to win in Iraq.
Finally a faint ray of light has penetrated the political tone deafness which is Pelosi and Reid. The American public doesn't want to slink out of Iraq in defeat; we want to get out by achieving what we're there to do: give the Iraqis an opportunity to set up a stable democratic government which they can defend themselves.
Increase in the federal minimum wage was a done deal; all that was undecided was how much of a tax break to give businesses. Be pissed off at Pres. Bush about something else.
DEFEAT?! Do you define a minimum wage increase that will screw over poor blacks in the inner city as VICTORY?
Who says that a minimum wage increase was a “done deal?” That is defeatist nonsense. It could only be approved if Bush signed it.
No, minimum wage nor any other bill, etc was on my mind when I was writing. IMHO: DEFEAT seems to be synonymous with Democrats. Whether they accuse others of it or attempt to separate themselves from it ... it just seems to stick to them.
I’m not surprised that the minimum wage bill wasn’t on your mind....People here seem perfectly willing to allow poor blacks to be screwed over for the “greater good.” In this respect, DEFEAT is synomous with those who falsely claim to be for limited government and the individual rights of the poor but support this bill.
Try to keep up. Pres. Bush was always going to sign it; the only holdup was tax breaks for businesses.
I’m not following your logic.
So how does an increase in the minimum wage supposedly “screw over” people on the basis of race? I understand the viewpoint of how it may cause inflation problems for poor people (I believe it’s more of a zero-sum situation), but to claim it’ll hurt one race over another inherently because of race is something I either don’t understand or think is entirely absurd.
Besides, what does any of this minimum wage stuff have to do with the war spending bill?
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.