That does it, guys. Yes, we are very disappointed with the "compromise" Iraq funding bill. We worked our asses off in 2006 to get a Democratic Congress because we wanted to stop this war. And for the first time in six years we WON. So now that they're in, the honeymoon is over, the Big Disappointment has happened, what are we going to do? Well, judging from the Recommended List, stop donating or supporting Democrats. Because, you know, obviously, cutting the Democrats loose, letting them falter and die, will stop the war. Won't it? No, it'll mean more pro-war Republicans will get elected in the Congress, and by the way, they're the ones we have the bigger problem with. I suggest another tact. Pressure the Democrats to be more aggressive, and target the Republicans.
Everyone seems to have forgotten the history of the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Like it was easy to come out for that, and that it had popular support. Well, it wasn't and it didn't. Russ Feingold introduced a non-binding resolution in August 2005 in the Senate. That was the first time in the upper chamber that it saw the light of day. It went nowhere. Then in the spring of 2006, John Kerry came to the conclusion that a timetable was needed, and partnering with Russ Feingold, wrote the Kerry/Feingold amendment. It was introduced in June 2006. During that time, Establishment Democrats went to the press, like the New York Times, and both anonymously and using their names opined on what an embarrassment John Kerry was, who was only running for president, trying to get attention with his unrealistic timetable. His amendment wasn't even deemed fit for the day time. The debate over the amendment was safely scheduled for after the evening news. The measure garnered 13 votes, with a chorus of "Cut and Run" by Republicans in the background. Despite conventional wisdom, that such a "radical" approach to Iraq would sink Democratic hopes for a good mid-term election result, they swept both Houses in November 2006.
The timetable started to get real cred when the Baker Hamilton report came out in December 2006. They called it a "goal", but one couldn't mistake the fact that the goal was a date -- end of the first quarter of 2008. The next break for the timetable came when presidential hopeful Barack Obama came out with his Iraq plan in January 2007, which set a goal for March 2008. Senator Obama had not voted for the Kerry/Feingold amendment, but saw the light and was on board with it.
The snowball effect heightened, when after Senator Kerry made it plain he would not run for president, Harry Reid introduced his Iraq resolution, which contained a timetable for withdrawal of March 2008. This was a watershed moment, since it came from the leadership. The "radical" plan had just gone mainstream in the Senate. Ultimately, it received 51 votes -- 49 Democrats plus 2 Republicans (Hagel and Smith). It was a remarkable journey from less than a year ago. 13 votes to 51. The bill was passed, reconciled with the House, and sent to the President's desk. George Bush vetoed the bill.
The Democrats blinked in this standoff. And, yes, we're all madder than hell about that. And it has been discussed ad nauseum HOW mad people are about it. So the question lends itself. What is next? Not just from Democrats, but from activists across the country. It seems that the loudest voices say we should abandon the Democrats for betraying us. I think that would be a big mistake. Instead, we need to redouble our efforts to make that number 51 get larger. The goal? 67. And 2/3rds of the House. Isn't the pressure as much on us, as it is on any elected official, to move those numbers to an overwhelming consensus? Because I don't think we have done that yet. And until we do, I say enough of the negativity. The Congress has heard our voices (with the 10% drop in their approval ratings). So it is time that we take our next step, and start calling the few Democrats and most of the Republicans who voted nay to the Reid resolution, demanding that they change their vote next time. Calling is no doubt the first step, and I'm sure many of you have additional ideas of how to pressure elected officials. The 2006 election got us to 51. I do not know if we can get to 67, but we need to try, and then yes -- we need more Democrats in the Congress in 2008.