[Lessismore]

I don't see the downside for the Democrats on this. They can just pass the "blank check" and then move on to domestic issues. If we go to war and it end well, they can take credit for it. If it ends badly, they can say it's all Bush's strategy and they had no input.

[hinckley buzzard]

The downside to a quick OK is the resulting and accurate perception of GW as a tough effective and determined leader. Leadership means coat-tails.

This will be especially true as the democraps' halfbaked "domestic" issues continue to dissolve in their hands, and their only shot at momentum is this sanctimonious huffing and puffing.

The problem is, deliciously, that they shot their wad on the "Bush-is-a-dunce" tactic, which has been a real exploding cigar, so now their credibility is shot.

[Wissa]

One downside for the dems in tight races is that there ARE some number of people that are vehemently anti-war. If somebody, Wellstone for example, votes in support of the President, he WILL lose the support of some of those fringe antiwar types. If he votes against action, he WILL lose some support of the people in the middle.

[randita]

They can just pass the "blank check" and then move on to domestic issues. If we go to war and it end well, they can take credit for it.

There will be way less money in the till for their social hand-outs if money is diverted to the war effort.

Besides, Democrats never want to share credit with Republicans. If they can't take all the credit, then they'll oppose Republicans getting even half.