Even before the new Congress was sworn in, I was never convinced that it would have any success to drawing down our military involvement in Iraq. The way I figured it, Bush would never capitulate, he would always have enough support in Congress to override any vetoes, and with time enough Democrats would give in to Bush's vetoes to allow him to continue the war as he pleased. I occasionally grew hopeful over creative ideas like mandating a certain amount of time away from Iraq for troops deployed there, thinking that perhaps there would be enough support to pass legislation like that, but those hopes frequently proved to be short lived as such plans were savaged as "slow bleed" or simply didn't have enough support in the Senate to overcome an all-night filibuster, much less override a veto. Whenever I was visiting, it always surprised me how optimistic Democrats were in Washington about winning the Iraq fights in Congress, because I simply did not see a path to make it happen. Republicans were not going to break on Iraq, and Democrats simply were not willing to take steps like refusing to pass, or even propose, appropriation bills on the war. In the absence of both, I didn't see a way for the war to end in 2007-2008.
Further, based on polling conducted for the MyDD / Courage Campaign / Wright Consulting 2006 candidate memo, I was also never convinced that Americans expected the Congress to end the war in Iraq. According to our polling, voters simply don't view Congress as powerful enough to change policy direction on pretty much anything, as long as the President opposes it. Polling before and after the elections showed this. Consider, for example, this Gallup poll taken a little more than two weeks before the election:
Poll results are based on telephone interviews conducted October 20-22, 2006.
Suppose the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress in this year's elections. Do you think Congress would be likely - or not likely -- to do each of the following after the Democrats take control in January?
Set a time-table for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq: Likely 82%, Not Likely 17%
While Americans overwhelmingly believed that Democrats were in favor of a timetable for withdrawal, when asked if Democrats would be successful in changing the direction of the war, Americans demurred:
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 12-14, 2007. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Thinking now about the new year, how likely is it that each of the following will occur in 2007: very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not likely at all? How about [see below]?"
"The U.S. will begin to withdraw troops from Iraq"
Very Likely: 8%, Somewhat Likely 26%, Not Very Likely 32%, Not Likely At All 33%
Americans overwhelmingly thought Democrats in Congress would propose a timetable for withdrawal, but they also, almost as overwhelmingly, believed that troops would not come home in 2007. The expectations were somewhere in a vague middle, where they wanted the war to end, wanted Democrats to end it since Republicans refused to do so, but at the same time did not expect Democrats to succeed in trying to end it. Generally speaking, voters also disapproved of more confrontational tactics that could be used to actually end it, like not acting on any supplemental appropriation bills. As such, overall, it isn't entirely clear what voters expected Democrats in Congress to accomplish on Iraq beyond oversight and making sure they at least put up a hard fight against Bush on the conditions of the Iraq war.
Personally, I am pretty much past any actual fight in Congress over Iraq funding, which I basically see as a lost cause. The big questions I have is what methods of pressure can we best use to change the behavior of those Democrats who capitulated on Iraq (in other words, where can we run effective primary challenges against Bush Dogs), and how can we best diffuse the conservative blurring strategy on Iraq for the 2008 elections? Both Digby and Jane Hamsher optimistically quote Bill Schiender that the Petraeus debacle could potentially result in a reversal of the blurring strategy, and cause Republicans to stick with the war entering 2008:
It probably contributed to the affect that I described earlier, which is that Republicans were expected to rally behind the president. This probably gave them a little more fire.
And as you indicated and as Candy said, that could be very damaging to Republicans in the long run because they feel like they're forced to stick with this president and this policy and the political damage could be catastrophic.
This will, of course, require the assistance of both Congressional Democrats to not participate in the blurring strategy, as Jane notes, and a non-lapdog press, as Digby notes. Right now, either don't seem to be in place, and so there is still great reason to be concerned about a conservative fueled Iraq blurring strategy that will eliminate the Democratic advantage in 2008. Even if ending the war was perhaps too high an expectation for what remains a very cautious Democratic Party and a very hard-line, unified Republican Party, at the very least we should all expect Democrats to not allow Republicans to blur the differences between the two parties stances on Iraq. Given the continued influence of the Pretenders to the new majority in the Democratic Congress, this won't be easy, but I think it remains the number one goal of the progressive movement over the next year. |
