News analysis: Democrats take uncompromising stance

That's the headline in a frontpage article on the LA Times webpage.  I was skeptical, because as a rule whenever I see a headline about Democrats, no matter what it says, I expect it to be unflattering.  Remember the "Dems in Disarray" years?

But this article is quite good, actually, at describing the nature of the problem (read: Republicans) in passing a bill to withdraw troops from Iraq.  The article explicitly states that Democrats in the House and Senate are trying to pass legislation to begin withdrawal, that the President is against any attempts to wind down US involvement in Iraq, and that Republicans are pretending to want withdrawal, but are blocking all attempts by Democrats to actually get out.

I know, that's not news to you.  But it puts that confusing Dems Filibuster The War! "news" narrative to rest, and very clearly lays the blame where it belongs.

To wit:

Since January, Senate Democrats have orchestrated nine major votes on measures designed to change course in Iraq; House Democrats have arranged for four.

Every proposal but one has died in the Senate, where Republicans have used that chamber's rules to block the measures.

And what is the solution to Republican obstructionism and obfuscation?  To play hardball.

This week, the latest proposal, which would have required that most troops be out of Iraq by April 30, died as Democrats failed to reach the 60-vote supermajority needed to cut off debate.

At the same time, Reid stunned Republicans when he shut down votes on alternatives that would have given them opportunities to back less forceful measures. The move locked a political escape hatch for GOP lawmakers, denying them opportunities to tell their constituents that they voted for legislation calling on the president to change course.

I think this is the best part of the article:

Democrats still need 14 more Republicans in the Senate and close to 70 more Republicans in the House before they could overcome a nearly certain presidential veto of any withdrawal measure.

That's exactly it: legisltation isn't getting passed because the Democrats don't have the votes to override a Presidential veto.  Why don't they have the votes?  Because there aren't enough Democrats in the House and Senate to do it alone, and they can't find even 14 Republican Senators who are willing to do the right thing.

Like I said, I know it's not news that the Republicans are the reason we are still in Iraq.  But sad as it is, it is news when the MSM actually conveys that information.

•  If only it were true

  It seems to me Democrats have done little but compromise. I wish they'd be a little more resolute in refusing to compromise.

  The Republicans have abandoned any semblance of common sense and decency. It's bad public policy to compromise with them now. Worse, it gets people killed.

  by wiscmass on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:41:23 AM PDT

  •  that's the position they are in though

    But the truth is that Bush isn't going to compromise, so the Dems can either capitulate or refuse to capitulate.  There is no room to compromise if Bush isn't willing, because there aren't enough Republican Senators that are interested in the future of this country enough to break away from Bush.  

    Really, the Dems been reduced to embarrassing the Republicans, and it's the Republican's fault.

    by unterhausen on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:48:14 AM PDT

    •  I Want to See WEEKLY / DAILY Embarrassing Votes

      At the current rate about 100 American troops die for each "Embarrassing Vote".

      "We Could Do Better..."

      How about just 28 (weekly) or 3 (daily) American soldiers' lives per "Embarrassing Vote"?

      The current ratio sucks...

      --Lefty!!!

      by LeftyLimblog on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 02:33:09 PM PDT

  •  "compromise" is not the right 'c' word

    capitulate.

    by pullbackthecurtain on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:11:03 AM PDT

•  Maybe the MSM are starting to realise

  Whose fault it is that we're still "surging?"

  The Democrats have not been perfect.  But right now, they're the only party trying to bring the troops home.  They might need (constant) prodding, but that's what we're here for.

  by mffarrow on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:45:07 AM PDT

•  Let's end the Bush Presidency

  Compromise helps continue the neo-con policy. Bush is hoping that compromise will resurrect his legacy. Time to bury Bush. Bush is going to veto anything that the Democrats want, so nothing getting done is better than letting the neo-cons get some victories in the last two years of the Bush Presidency.

  by BlueTide on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:52:54 AM PDT

•  Well written ...

  Clear, and definitely straight to the point ....

  by jfdunphy on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:05:49 AM PDT

  •  thanks

    by mffarrow on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 12:10:54 PM PDT

•  Do My Eyes Deceive Me?

  An old-fashioned printed rag actually gets a story straight, facts and all?

  Who thinks the readers will believe it?

  Who thinks there are readers?

  While I'm glad to see your diary and know that the LA Times is truth-telling, I'm not optimistic about the genpub paying attention to that truth.  Wish it were otherwise. . .

  by Limelite on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:30:08 AM PDT

•  Headline I'd like to see

  Democrats Take Strong Stance

  ... but I'll take "uncompromising" for now.

  People know Democrats have better ideas than Republicans. People agree with Dems on issue after issue. Then they go and elect Republicans because they crave strength in their government.

  Democrats need to establish strength as integral to our brand.

  by DBunn on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:38:01 AM PDT

•  The article gets many things right but

  this really ticked me off:

  This bellicose, uncompromising legislative strategy — on display again this week as Reid refused to allow votes on nonbinding GOP-backed Iraq proposals — has been an obstacle to any real bipartisan compromise on the war all year.

  Seems pretty clear to me they're still blaming the Democrats for the lack of a "bipartisan compromise." News flash, folks: It takes both sides, and the Repubs aren't interested in compromise, only capitulation.

  I'm sick unto death of "compromises" that mean, in essence, letting Bush do whatever the hell he wants.

  I say, show me some real efforts at compromise on the part of the Republicans before bemoaning the Democrats' "bellicose, uncompromising" stance.

  Sheesh.

  by deha on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:43:15 AM PDT

  •  "bipartisan compromise" here is merely

    a fig leaf for repubs to deceive their constituents into thinking that they (the repubs) are anti-war, while they simultaneously continue to support Bush's Iraq folly.

    Praise to Harry Reid for calling these repubs on their deceitfulness.

    by gopher747 on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 02:16:46 PM PDT

•  Umm-that's the reason the Dems just pulled the

  allnighter.

  That Dems are not blocking the votes is not news-it's just news that the Msm refuses to pick up on-therfore laying much of the blame for daily lives lost on the msm.

  Dems need to do a better job of speaking to the public.Too many cooks and not enough chefs.

  I actually watched Hardball on Fri. with melody Morgan and Naomi Wolfe. wolfe was supposedly the Dem-Morgan the GOP.
  Morgan was actually being so obnoxious as to call for the murder of a whistleblower she thought should be tried for treason. Yet this Wolfe woman, was just as obnoxious with her elitist, condescending attitude-accusing the host rightoff the bat of not doing his homework...
  I want to reach through my tv when I see moronic-selfinvolved examples like this.
  Here, this Morgan woman whom I should have been dumbfounded by the machiavellian-like statements-was only half as offensive because of the snotty, condescension of the Dem- Wolf.
  Sorry Dems but get soem decent spokespeople out there on behalf of the Dems and quit putting either one of of these snide bitches on.
  They give women a bad name.
  I hate that there are women who think they have to emulate men to get ahead, instead of relying on thier own strengths.

  by bethincary on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 11:48:12 AM PDT

•  try to pass the same legislation every week

  The Dems should try to pass the same legislation every week and indelibly mark the Republicans.  After a few attempts the Republicans would begin to panic and vote for it.

  by realtime on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 12:12:10 PM PDT

•  Diary recommended.

  Whenever the MSM actually gets it right, it is indeed newsworthy!

  by gopher747 on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 02:07:30 PM PDT