November 13, 2007

Democratic voter backlash?

Voters unsatisfied with Democratic efforts to remove us from Iraq are really pissed and threatening not to vote or voting for primary challengers. Duh.

When the Democratic Party called up recently to ask Myrna Burgess for a campaign contribution, she answered with an emphatic ``no.''

``Nothing has been done as far as the war is concerned,'' said Burgess, 72, an Amtrak worker from Levittown, Pennsylvania.

More than a year after anti-war voters like Burgess helped give Democrats control of Congress, there are more troops in Iraq, lawmakers have approved almost $100 billion in new war spending and congressional approval ratings are at record lows.

Democrats now worry that their inability to make good on campaign promises to end or slow the war in Iraq will have consequences. The disaffection has already fueled at least four anti-war primary challenges to party incumbents, raising fears among some lawmakers of an intra-party fight that could drain momentum before next year's elections.

``They want someone to be held accountable,'' said Representative Lynn Woolsey of California, a leading anti-war Democrat in the House.

Actually, it's not just Iraq, it's also AG Mukasey, restoration of Habeas Corpus, telecom immunity and the other issues on which the Democrats have decided to compromise with the Administration. Which is a nice way of saying 'Democrats let Bush have what he wanted because they were afraid of soft-on-terror campaign ads'. The political reality, which no one in Washington on the D side seems to get, is that it's better to pass bills you know Bush will veto so you can hold them up and say, 'Look. Look at what Republicans are doing to the country!'

Part of the reason D's are in the majority now is to act as a roadblock to Bush and the Republicans until 2008 when we can replace the rest of them, if needed. Sure, originally (early in the year) we thought there might be some things the chastened Republicans would go for. They did and some good legislation got passed. However, we're now at the big ticket items and you don't compromise on those. You BEAT the Republicans to death with them and let voters know that if they want real, substantive progress we need a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President.

If you can't get them to help pass good legislation, you stop them (and Bush) cold. Sometimes the biggest part job of a Member of Congress is just stopping bad things from happening. Apparently Schumer and Feinstein forgot that.

Last note... keep Pelosi away from the press...

Democratic leaders acknowledge that these stalemates may be eroding their support with the party's anti-war wing, and say they are aware of the potential for a voter backlash.

``We haven't been effective in ending the war in Iraq,'' Pelosi told reporters Nov. 1. ``If you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well.''

Madam Speaker, it would have killed you to blame this all on the Republicans??!?!? Maybe take 5 seconds to explain that they are blocking good legislation by backing up Bush's vetos? Nancy, quit accepting blame for something you didn't do. It doesn't make you look humble, it makes you look stupid and meek.

Posted by mcblogger at November 13, 2007 01:52 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Remember me?