Posted on 02/26/2008 5:07:00 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
WASHINGTON -- Democrats, facing rejection today of a proposal co-sponsored by Wisconsin's Sen. Russ Feingold to cut off money for the Iraq war, are planning to shift their emphasis to the war's toll on the American economy to rebuild anti-war momentum.
In recent months, violence in Iraq has declined, and the Baghdad government has made small steps toward political reconciliation, including plans to hold provincial elections on Oct. 1. While Democratic voters remain largely against the war, the security improvement has helped to cool anxiety among Republicans and stave off legislation demanding that troops start coming home.
The Senate was expected to vote today on a proposal to order troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days.
In an interview with the editorial board of The Capital Times last week, Feingold acknowledged that the prospects of the bill passing were slim.
But he maintained, "It's better to vote and lose," adding that most Democrats understand that "nothing major is going to happen until we get a new president."
Even if the measure were to pass, President Bush would likely veto it, and Democrats lack a veto-proof majority in Congress. As a result, Democrats are talking about shifting their strategy to focus more on the policy issues surrounding Iraq.
Anti-war sentiment among voters has taken a back seat to the economy, and a coalition of anti-war groups said this week that it plans to spend more than $20 million this year to convince voters that the Republican Party's support for the war is bad for their households.
Anti-war activists say they believe Americans are increasingly aware of the economic burden that the Iraq war has caused. This election season, they say, voters will blame Republicans for supporting the war at a time of rising health care and college costs and in the midst of a mortgage foreclosure crisis.
"Leaders who do not recognize this connection will be at a disadvantage come election day," said Jeff Blum, director of USAction, which plans to spend $10 million this year on organizing a grass-roots effort against Republican candidates.
Blum said the group intends to dispatch hundreds of thousands of volunteers to go door to door to convince voters that the GOP's war effort is hurting the economy.
MoveOn.org, another anti-war group, says it will spend at least $5 million targeting congressional seats, including Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Brad Woodhouse, head of Americans United for Change, estimates his group will spend about $8.5 million, focusing primarily on political advertisements.
Jon Soltz, an Army reservist who heads of VoteVets.org, said his group will be running an ad in the Washington, D.C., area that will feature a female Iraq veteran urging Sen. John McCain, the expected GOP nominee for president, to abandon his commitment to Iraq.
"The Iraq war is basically a retreat policy against al-Qaida and (terrorist leader Osama) bin Laden," Soltz said.
Feingold has long held that position, arguing that the Iraq war diverted troops that could have been used to crush al-Qaida in Iraq. But he said that in recent listening sessions across Wisconsin, he has intentionally not mentioned the war, seeing if citizens raised the issue themselves. The result? The war remains the number one topic in those discussions, he said.
"The people do want this, even while the consultants are telling us not to talk about it," Feingold said.
140,000 troops
The Pentagon is projecting that when the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq ends in July there will be about 8,000 more troops on the ground than when it began in January 2007, a senior general said Monday.
Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, operations chief for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that by July the troop total is likely to be 140,000. That compares with 132,000 when President Bush approved orders to send an additional five Army brigades to Iraq to improve security and avert civil war.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the announcement showed that Bush's troop buildup was not a temporary measure. Democrats said when they regained control of the Congress in the November 2006 elections that they would force Bush to end the war but have failed to achieve that.
"As we approach the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, Americans continue to demand a new direction in Iraq and reject a continuation of the president's plan for a 10-year, trillion dollar war in Iraq," Pelosi said.
RATS control the Congress, if they think Iraq’s so bad it’s killing the economy, plus starving kids and minorities, let them openly debate defunding the war, and vote on it! [/s]
What I don’t get is why people would even declare themselves members of this political party that is so invested in making America lose.
Way to go, John McFeingold. Take a bow for your achievement.
“But, the biggest problem of all is Congress.”
Amen to that!
Gearing up for their anticipated takeover of all branches of our government?
It costs Americans relatively fewer dollars to wage war than it has historically.
The war is not a drain on the economy.
Attempts by the Leftist propaganda machine to link the war to economic downturn will likely fail, but for the help and collusion of the mainstream media.
moveon.org would be even more effective without mccain feingold.
That's okay, the Republicans are going to shift their emphasis to how Democrat blocking of drilling in ANWR and offshore plus their ethanol mandates and other environmental are causing the inflationary spiral that's taking out the economy. Any day now they'll be doing that. It's just around the corner that they'll be doing that.
Did you see “interest on the debt”
No one here should be happy with the spending of money we dont have.
We now only spend 4% of GDP on our military, compared to 6% under Reagan, 10% during Vietnam, 14% during Korea, and 40% during WWII.
This argument the Dems are making makes absolutely no sense. But don’t you *dare* call them treasonous or unpatriotic!
D’oh! You beat me to it!
Well, at least we have educated people here.
But it could be offset by stronger conservative organizations.
on the other hand, they will also demand that Pres. Bush tax cuts be sunset.
If ending the war will ease economic strain, why would they need to raise taxes ?
I’m still looking for the Constitutional spending......
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.