Why the Democrats Lost

Thursday the Democratic majority in the House and Senate passed another blank check to fund the war in Iraq. The attempt to add even voidable benchmarks for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq failed and failed completely. W won.

Lots of bloggers on the left are ranting on how horrible this is and bashing the Democratic leaders in the Congress for their failure. I prefer to examine why this effort failed and what might be done differently in the fall and beyond as more supplemental funding bills are needed to pay for W's stupid, stupid, stupid war.

When the debate began, I was attracted to Rep. Murtha's plan for the bill. His idea was to tie the money to troop readiness requirements for training and time between deployments that would have kicked W's "surge" in the teeth. W could come to Congress to ask for a waiver for these requirements, but he would have to come up with reasons and gain the votes to get the waiver. I liked this plan. I saw the Democrats granting the money with these pro-troops provisions and daring W to explain why he was vetoing the bill. It may never have become law, but it would have definitely stuck it to W. Murtha's bill could have been an easy victory for the Democrats in Congress. Show that W didn't want to compromise or "protect the troops." In a debate with "needs of the troops" as the focal point of the rhetoric, Murtha's bill would immediately show that W was not concerned about the troops. He would be turning down a reasonable requirement for a worn and weary Army and Marine Corps.

Murtha's bill was rejected as not going far enough. Instead the Democrats went for a bill with a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. It was a great crowd pleaser for the Democratic base and the Democrats could point to numerous polls showing that a majority of citizens wanted the troops out by 2008. The flaw in the plan was not that it followed public opinion. The flaw was that they picked a bill that had no chance of becoming law with no back up plan for what to do after W vetoed the bill and an override attempt failed. Somehow they seemed to think that W would actually negotiate a compromise when he didn't need to do so. He had the Republican votes needed to sustain veto after veto. The Democrats were left with no hand to play.

You can hear many within the Democratic base crying and nashing their teeth at the failure of a Democratic Congress to deliver on their promise of "no more blank checks." What you do not see is any recognition of the reality of congressional procedure. Congress cannot force anything on the president without the votes required to override a veto. No one thought those votes existed. Only the most naive anti-war activist thought the Congress could force an end to the Iraq War. Unfortunately, Democratic congressional leaders played the game almost as naively as a college freshman whose knowledge of how a bill becomes a law is based upon the cartoon explanation from Schoolhouse Rock.

A strategy that recognized their limitations could have put pressure on W to compromise. Why not requirements for readiness? Why not benchmarks for the Iraqi government that could be enforced? Why not promise no permanent US military bases in Iraq? Why not draw up preliminary plans on withdrawal? Each of these could have been in a bill and used to point to W and the Republicans as the supporters of "stay the course" and screw the troops. The Democrats failed strategy leaves them looking weak and gives W his first real political victory since his re-election.

What will happen in the fall when this starts again? If you are a Democrat or simply someone who wants some check on W's war, you better hope thinking about this has already begun and is more thorough this time. The Democrats should not rely upon Republicans for help. The latest round of "the next few months are crucial" statements are no better an indicator of the Republicans facing reality than the last 7 versions of those statements. The congressional Democrats will again be facing a united front from the pro-war party. This fall they must recognize that W has no desire to compromise on anything and they should assume he won't. They should state upfront that their ability to change the policy is limited by a president who has operated for over 4 years without a strategy or accountability. They should focus on strengthening the view among the public that the Republican Party is the party of a failed war without end. They should call for the war to be part of the regular budgeting process. They should pass bills with support for post-traumatic stress syndrome programs and similar pro-veterans elements including planning for how to repair the Army and Marine Corps that have been severely damaged by W's endless stupidity and stubbornness. Some of these efforts should not wait for the next supplemental request. Amendments can be attached to other bills W wants to sign. Simultaneously, the hearings and investigations on exposing the poor judgment and corruption of W's war could be used to increase the pressure. They also must teach their base that pushing for withdrawal and only withdrawal will be another loser.

Ending the war and winning the next election are not independent events. W has no intention of leaving Iraq as long as he is president. The Republican presidential candidates are lining up in support of W's war. The Democrats can and must demonstrate that if they public wants the war to end, they are the only choice. This cannot be done by repeating Thursday's failure.