We're about 8 months into Democratic control over Congress and it's pretty clear something has gone terribly wrong. Congressional approval has dropped to one of its lowest levels ever and congressional Democrats have made no progress at forcing a change on the Iraq War and were railroaded into rubberstamping Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. Much has been made of the "Bush dogs" who helped pass these odious bills, but not enough has been made of the failures of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in steering the Democratic caucus away from controversial bills designed solely to divide the Democrats and weaken their standing with their voters. Whether you identify yourself as a conservative, moderate, or liberal Democrat and whether or not you are a DC insider or outsider, it's clear that we need a massive course correction in Congress.
How did we get to this point? Democrats won big victories in 2006 and triumphantly entered Washington, hoping to reign in the excesses of the Bush administration and force a change of course (at minimum) on the Iraq War. Yet they have failed on all of those fronts and have seen their public standing drop precipitously. Most administrations react to losing Congress by reaching out to the victors and pledging to work hard to pass legislation. Yet this administration reacted in exactly the opposite way. Despite the clear wishes of the public to end the war, Bush did just the exact opposite and rather than reach out to Democrats, he issued veto threats to every single piece of Democratic legislation.
The surge caught Pelosi and Reid flatfooted: once it became clear that they would do nothing more than introduce non-binding resolutions of disapproval, Bush knew he could have his war till the end of his presidency. When it came time to challenge Bush on the war, Democratic leaders showed no ability to think about how their strategy would play out and as a result, they have come off looking disorganized and weak. When it came time to deal with war funding, the leadership decided to challenge Bush, but they did not consider what their strategy would be if he vetoed their bill. Would they refuse to pass another bill and force him to accept their's in order to continue the war or would they cave in and give him what he wanted? And if they intended to do the latter, was it wise to cave in and look weak after promising to change course on the war? Ultimately the leadership decided to cave in and then promised us that they would challenge the administration for real in September, when they also promised that Republicans would begin to abandon the administration. Well, as we all could have predicted, the Right Wing Noise Machine is trumpeting news of Success in Iraq! and Democratic presidential candidates and congressional leaders have weakly played along rather than challenge this latest White House spin. Most confusing of all is how "progress in Al-Anbar" is touted as a sign The Surge is succeeding, despite the fact that The Surge was supposed to be reducing violence in Baghdad.
At this point, it's clear what's going to happen come September. General Petraeus will say that there are signs of progress and he needs more time, Democrats will roll over and continue the war for another year. Then we'll suddenly see reports about how the White House manipulated the September report, Democratic leaders will express outrage and vow to challenge Bush next time.
It's easy enough to blame the Bush Dogs for the current inability of the Congress to challenge Bush in any substantive way, but we cannot ignore the failures of the congressional leadership. As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has complete control over what gets a vote and what does not. One of the key things the majority leadership is responsible for is making sure bills that will split their caucus in half never see the light of day. Even during Republican control, minimum wage increases would have easily passed, but they never got voted on. Pelosi and Reid as well have a responsibility not to allow legislation to come up which is specifically designed to peel off just enough Democrats to pass. We can complain all day about Bush Dogs voting for the FISA bill and the Bush Iraq bill, but they would not have gotten the chance without Nancy Pelosi scheduling a vote. The leadership's strategy of complaining about Bush policies and then letting Congress rubber stamp them is particularly damaging to our reputation. People see Democrats complain about FISA and Iraq and then pass those bills, which makes congressional Democrats look spineless and unprincipled.
It's time for Pelosi to make it clear to the White House that there will be no more capitulation and that they no longer will be able to force bad legislation through Congress because it will not get a vote. Since the Blue Dogs are so obsessed with bipartisanship, she can say that unless the administration negotiates in a bipartisan way, then their bills will not get votes. The first few times this is done, the Blue Dogs will complain bitterly, but when the Democrats' public standing improves, they will get the message. Many members from swing districts are reluctant about voting against Republican favored bills because they are afraid of becoming vulnerable back home. While that concern is unfounded in the case of Iraq, it is a concern nonetheless. Members cannot be attacked for votes they do not make, which is a stronger reason for the leadership to stop letting these ridiculous bills get votes.
So as we take on the Bush Dogs, let's also challenge the Democratic leadership. It's time for them to start using some of the powers of the majority party if they hope to force Bush to come to the table. Once he realizes he can't continue the war until a funding bill is approved, he'll start talking. And to any Democrats in Congress who are worried about the political implications of confronting Bush, consider this: you have tried going along with Bush and your approval rating is worse than his, so maybe it's time to try confronting him for a change--you can only go up from here.