Where are Democrats' big changes?

[untateve]

I have a dream that this will not be the typical dems suck, repubs are great or vice versa. I'm hoping for more of a discussion of how the dems in congress are doing. It is also my dream that when some of the trolls hit this post they can be ignored.

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...pinionfront-hed

 

By Michael Tackett

the Tribune's Washington Bureau chief

Published May 27, 2007

 

 

As Memorial Day approaches in the nation's capital, it seems appropriate to celebrate the men and women here in uniform.

 

The blue suits, the gray suits, the pantsuits, the occasional pastel suits. Known to many as members of your United States Congress.

 

Those Democrats who rode a mighty wind to victory last November and promised all manner of meaningful change under their leadership are nearly midsession.

 

Feeling better about things?

 

More than anything, they promised to change the course of the war in Iraq, and many promised to bring it to an end. What happened? They conceded almost every important point to President Bush. No timetable for troop withdrawal. No meaningful leverage to change the president's plan for war funding.

 

Instead, the tough talkers from the fall campaign were left with an almost cowering rationalization: "What other choice did we have?"

 

The debates over the legislation laid bare the Democrats' internal divide over Iraq. The center won and the left lost, at least for now.

 

Perhaps the clearest measure of the Democratic fissures is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi voted against a measure whose victory others in the party leadership helped to ensure. More than 140 House members in her party joined her, but with the outcome so obvious in advance, it is hard to know how many actually voted their conviction.

 

In the Senate, the result was the same. Everyone knew that the measure would pass, meaning it was also safe to vote against it. So that is what the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, did, along with the hoping-to-rise-from-zero-in-the-polls Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. They were among 14 to cast "no" votes.

 

Among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware voted with Bush in what stood out as the more principled vote.

 

For Republicans, the vote carries a different burden. By following the president, they take an even greater ownership stake in a war that shows no sign of turning around soon. Bush cannot suffer any more at the ballot box in his time in office. A lot of other Republicans can. Sen. John McCain of Arizona can't seem to get close enough to Bush on Iraq, accusing Clinton and Obama of "waving a white flag to Al Qaeda."

 

Democrats also promised to end the culture of corruption in Washington. Then one of their own, the decidedly anti-war retired Marine, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, threatened dire consequences for anyone who tried to touch an earmark he had attached to legislation, the kind of congressional sleight of hand that the new team was supposed to stop.

 

Led by Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, Democrats were able to push through something they could defensibly call reform, but it hardly matches the tough talk of the campaign.

 

Emanuel was a political midwife for the Democrats' much-publicized "Six for '06" billboard during the midterm campaign. The list was true to Clintonism: poll-tested, essentially unassailable stands for "honest leadership and open government, energy independence, a health-care system that works for everyone, real security, economic prosperity and educational excellence, and retirement security."

 

So far the success has been limited. If it were a batting average it would be below the Mendoza line. Some of the measures are in conference committee, so the average will get better, but few voters are feeling any impact of the Democratic reign yet.

 

What have the newly empowered Democrats done about the cost of health care or protection of the uninsured? What have they done about the tax system? What have they done for education? Not much. They seem content with being an almost single-issue party. But they can't even do that with consistency.

 

Democrats who voted with the president on this war funding bill vow to fight it out in later battles this summer, such as the funding bill for the Defense Department.

 

Their strategy appears to be to give Bush until September to turn the war around, dubious as that prospect might be. The president acknowledged the struggle ahead, even saying he expected August to be "bloody."

 

Looked at another way, the Democrats are willing to let the war with its attendant carnage play out for another 90 days even though they don't support the strategy. Rather, they seem to be thinking that the president will have even less standing to ask for more after the so-called surge is judged to be a flameout. And the political win would come easier.

 

Not exactly a Memorial Day tribute. ---------- mtackett@tribune.com

 

 

 

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

[Big F'n Dave]

Political discussions suck. Lock this thread.

[polksalet]

While there are significant differencs between the people who make up both parites, there are no differences in the parties themselves.

[The Holy Roller]

While there are significant differencs between the people who make up both parites, there are no differences in the parties themselves.

 

 

 

I concur. Vote Libertarian!