OK, it so the #1 consideration of most of our Dem reps and senators is getting reelected. Sticking their neck out against the war might be risky.
And they whine that until we elect more Dems, they "don't have the votes" for any tough legislation.
But legislation doesn't have to pass to succeed at the polls!
The dominant hypothesis as to why supposedly antiwar reps and senators don't even angle for serious war-ending legislation is that this is electorally prudent: we'll vote for them anyway, and they won't tick off any pro-war voters too much.
Then there's the even more cynical hypothesis that they want to prolong the war until the 2008 election, to keep it alive as a key issue in the congressional and presidential races. (Uh, guys...not to worry! I think there will still be a few boots on the ground next November.)
But if (as the CW holds) one of the main reasons the Dems did well in 2006 was that people wanted them to end the war, then it follows with painful obviousness that all they have to do is pretend to end the war.
So please: pander to us! Pass bills with pathetic majorities that can't survive a veto. Hell, put bills to a vote that don't even pull enough Bush Dogs to pass.
WTF difference does it make? It'd be good enough! More and more people are against this debacle every day. If they just think Dems want to end the war, they'll elect more of them.
How is this so hard to understand?
Oh, P.S. : it's the right thing to do.