If our Congresscritters had backbones on Iraq...
Let me sum up the strategic situation on the American political front these days. Despite the overwhelmingly Democratic results of the 2006 elections, they were not overwhelming enough to generate any real action from the legislature. The Ds have 51 or so Senators, the Rs have 49, but it doesn't matter; as we know, under our system it will require 67 votes to pass anything of substance over a Bush veto in areas like Iraq. The House is a similar situation, regardless of the D/R split it doesn't matter unless it is veto-proof; you need 290 votes for a veto-proof majority and we're not even close there. So realistically the Ds are not going to be able to pass anything that W will veto.
Is it hopeless? Is there no way the Ds can accomplish anything before January of 2009? On the war the wimps in both houses were capitulating faster than I could follow then the big appropriation bill came up for a vote before the summer recess. Is it all lost?
Actually, no. There is a way. We need to ask the right questions, like this:
Do we have a veto-proof majority of Ds (plus an R or two, perhaps) that will vote to defund the war? Nope, next question
Do we have a majority of Ds (plus an R or two, perhaps) that will vote to defund the war? Nope, next question
Do we have 41 Senators who would vote to defund the war? Don't know the answer to that one yet. Maybe.
What can you do with 41 Senators? Filibuster against things W wants to continue in Iraq, like the recent extra $50B just asked for, that's what. In practical terms, our Congresscritters were all taking the temperature in their home districts for and against the war. Some of them may have gotten an earful that scared them, if the opinion polls are any guide, and might be ready to switch to a strong antiwar position. With 41 vertebrate votes in the Senate you can sustain a filibuster.
Next-to-last question. What is the best strategy to help those 41 votes in their time of need? I have only one but it might be a good one. Every time someone who votes to sustain a filibuster against an appropriation bill for Iraq, stand up and say, loud and clear "It is Bush that is holding our troops hostage for a failed and still failing Iraq policy" Attacking Bush on this and other related issues should be a sure winner - I think a big attack campaign by the Ds, at the same time as the vote on the $50B appopriation, might make a difference. Attacking the Rs in Congress this way is a sure thing. But they probably won't risk it.
Last question. Why the lack of D willingness to fight the good fight? Most likely too many D senators are still gun-shy from years in the minority, and can't get up the energy to go Bush-hunting. Or they want to be "collegial", or "responsible" or any one of a number of code workds for "I don't care enough to do my job".