There have been all kinds of rumors flying about
that the bill the Democratic Congress is going to send to Bush will be stripped of time tables for withdrawal
. This would be stupid, stupid, stupid. Why are Democrats doing anything that will give them more "ownership" of an occupation that is stupid, wrong, and hugely unpopular? Who the fuck are these "Blue Dog" Democrats who want to have "advisory language" or "goals" instead of "get out by date X" provisions in the bill? Who is their constituency? They can't be catering to voter sentiment, because voter sentiment is against Bush and against this occupation. Are they beholden to some interest group that has a stake in prolonging our involvement in the catastrophe? Or are they just so bamboozled by the Washington D.C. culture that they still feel they can't do anything sensible without looking weak? I can't believe they actually think our occupation has any chance of successfully achieving anything in Iraq.
I just don't understand it. I can understand political compromise on various issues because some Democrats come from conservative districts. But on the Iraq occupation, public opinion is pushing the other way: people want Congress to stand up to the President more
. If someone can explain the dynamics at work here, I'd very much appreciate it.
Time to start thinking about running Democratic primary challengers against some people. I knew Republicans would have a hard time accepting the lessons of November 2006. But why are Democrats having a hard time doing so? Is our political culture that dysfunctional? (I can just picture Atrios answering: Yes.)