Today, in Kos' FP posts asking how the Dem leaders are doing, I had an exchange with some kossacks about Senate Leader Reid. Reid's numbers deteriorated badly and one kossack wondered why there was a divergence between Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid. I think the differences are easily explained. While Pelosi has not distinguished herself on Iraq, she had other notable successes. By contrast, Reid not only was ineffectual on Iraq, he almost blundered into a serious mistake when he embraced the Warner Amendment on the Surge.
This kossack pointed to the Senate rules as an explanation. But the Senate rules come as no surprise to anyone. Reid should not have been surprised by GOP recalcitrance and obstruction. It was to be EXPECTED! The lead on Iraq must come from the House. The Senate needs to understand and accept this. More.
Update [2007-2-28 1:19:37 by Big Tent Democrat]: Use Danby's diary for action contacts.
Some other developments today on dissatisfaction with the Dem Congress on Iraq:
A new frame for defunding:
[T]he way to achieve withdrawal, or the favored euphemism, redeployment, is to defund the continued deployment in Iraq. My preferred approach is to set a date certain for when funding will cease, 9 to 12 months from the date of announcement of said Congressional policy.
But there are other rhetorical and procedural ways to achieve this. Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman and Congressman David Wu describe another:
The real debate on Iraq begins with Congress's consideration of the military budget. The president has requested almost three quarters of a trillion dollars to fund the military through September 30, 2008. More than $150 billion is earmarked for Iraq.
We have already spent $350 billion there, so the president's proposal pushes our Iraqi costs close to the half trillion mark. At the same time, he is demanding a $100 billion cut in health care funding, falling most heavily on poor children, while he maintains his $200 billion annual tax cut, channeled mostly to millionaires.
It is Congress's job to restore fiscal balance first, by placing an overall limit on Iraq war expenditures. Congress should limit this president to spending half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war -- and no more.
. . . In taking this step, Congress wouldn't be initiating a grand constitutional battle over the war powers of the president. It would be exerting its constitutional power of the purse and playing its traditional role as a check on another branch of government, rebalancing runaway programs that threaten to overwhelm our fiscal health and national priorities.
150 billion dollars would fund the war for approxi[m]ately 12 months. In essence, it sets a date certain for ending funding for the Iraq Debacle. I do not see any substantive difference from what I have suggested. If this is easier for the Democrats in Congress to swallow, then do it this way. The result is the same.
Tom Andrews is not happy:
The antiwar leader, Tom Andrews, the head of Win Without War . . . is warning that Congressional Dems are at risk of badly botching the public relations battle over Iraq and is urging Congressional Dems to move more aggressively to confront the Republicans in the political showdown over ending the war.
. . . "Democrats have to fight," Andrews tells us. "Where are the voices in Congress reflecting the majority view of the American people?"
. . . "The Republicans should be on their heels," Andrews says. "They have put the troops in these conditions -- and they're the ones on the offensive! There should be a relentless attack" from Dems, Andrews continues. "Dems in Congress should be talking relentlessly about the lack of equipment, the lack of training, the multiple deployments, every day. There should be a relentless demand for accountability."
While I think Andrews has to face the fact that defunding is the way to do it, I am with his sentiment.
Even Arnold wants a timeline:
Before their Iraq briefing at the White House yesterday, the nation's governors were instructed that they were not to ask any pesky questions about a timetable for bringing the troops home. So by the time California's Arnold Schwarzenegger was on his third question about a timetable for bringing the troops home, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace was just the tiniest bit out of patience . . .
I got news for General Pace, the American People are out of patience too.
And Stoller and I are not happy with the Netroots either:
In this post, I warned of the Netroots forgetting the lessons learned from the intraparty battles on Iraq and other issues from 2003 to 2006:
Are we forgetting these lessons? I fear we are. The Netroots must not forget this fight, how we won it and how we must continue to win it in our Democratic Party.
Matt, to his credit, urges a reconsideration of what the Netroots has done of late:
I would hope that we change our behavior and hold our party accountable soon. The mechanism for doing so is criticism, and perhaps primary challenges against some prominent Democrats who are among the worst of our obstacles.
Good for Matt. He's right. The Netroots has been asleep at the switch lately.