Public Agrees with Progressive Weariness of Timidity in Democratic Party
John Edwards in 2008?
The culprit causing weariness is Democratic leaders' timid fear of public reaction to bold actions and angry, authentic responses to the wrong-headed policies and programs of the Bush administration.
From a progressive viewpoint, the lack of many Democratic leaders' courage of moral conviction in the face of obvious wrong is frustrating. And anger at pols who tailor their poll-tested words to please conservatives is mounting daily... especially on the Iraq War.
The result is legislation with no reinforcement teeth. Or legislation watered down sufficiently to render it voiceless and useless. Or, in the case of immigration reform, for instance, the shameful result is no legislation at all, thus far.
Progressives and the Iraq War
Most in the progressive movement opposed the Iraq War before the Bush/Cheney White House attacked Iraq in March 2003.
In 2002, top liberal leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi and 132 other House members voted against the Iraq War, as did Kent Conrad (D-ND), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and 18 other members of the Senate. (See Iraq War Vote in 2002: 156 Congress Members Who Voted NO.)
But that was when the public, believing Bush administration lies about WMDs in Iraq, supported the Iraq War.
Four years ago, President Bush, wearing a miitary flight jumpsuit as prop, declared, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
George Bush was 100% wrong that day, of course. And now, after the deaths and tragic injuries of more than 30,000 U.S. soldiers, after the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilians, and after the wasted expenditure of more than $500 billion of U.S. taxpayers' hard-earned funds... the American public no longer supports the Iraq War.
Per Rasmussen polls released on April 29, 2007:
* 57% of American voters favor either an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq or a firm timetable for withdrawal.* 52% of American adults opposed a Presidential veto of the Iraq War supplemental bill passed by Congress last week.
* Democrats, by a 77% to 11% margin, opposed a Presidential veto of the bill.
* Among those not affiliated with either major party, 49% favored a veto while 35% opposed.
What Next, after the Presidential Veto?
The Democratic-led Congress was absolutely correct to attach to the Iraq War supplemental spending bill a specific timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It's the right thing to do.
The American public strongly agrees with that stance. And Democrats now wholewheartedly agree with that a timetable must be set to bring our soldiers home.
Here's the rich irony: while the public has never agreed more with the progressive position on the Iraq War, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, post-veto, are reportedly meeting with President Bush to negotiate a compromise on the Iraq War.
"WHY?" asks Democratic Party progressives? "Why compromise?"
Wrong is wrong, and the Iraq War is, and always was, wrong. And in early May 2007, the Iraq War is not only wrong: it's failed miserably, too.
Why be politically timid? Why be afraid to take a firm stand?
If being morally correct isn't enough for Democratic leaders, polls indicate that there's NO personal political risk, either, for sticking for their legislative guns on the Iraq War. Why back down now?
Most, Not All, Democratic Leaders Go Timid
AP reported on April 1, 2007:
"If President Bush vetoes an Iraq war spending bill as promised, Congress quickly will provide the money without the withdrawal timeline the White House objects to because no lawmaker 'wants to play chicken with our troops,' Sen. Barack Obama said Sunday. "
To her credit, 2008 candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton "held out the threat of withholding funding for U.S. troops in Iraq if President Bush does not agree to a timeline for withdrawal," reported ABC News in mid-April 2007. Clinton admittedly refused to take a firm, principled stand, though, by commenting "I don't want to foreclose any options right now."
Of the 3 Democratic frontrunners for 2008 presidential race, only former Sen. John Edwards unequivocally states:
"The American people have given Congress a mission to end the war - but that mission hasn't been accomplished yet.Congress needs to stand firm and strong. Congress should answer the president's veto by sending him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal.
And if he vetoes that one, Congress should send him another and another until we end this war and bring our troops home."
I'm starting to understand why progressive Democrats are supporting John Edwards in droves: he's unafraid to take a firm stand on the Iraq War (or other issues, such as universal healthcare).
And I'm starting to understand why John Edwards' candidacy is showing remarkable staying power with the public in primary states Iowa and New Hampshire.
After all, timidity is lack of courage. Cowardice. Progressives and the American public are right to grow weary of timidity in the Democratic Party.
And the VERY last person the U.S. needs (or wants) to elect in 2008 is a president without courage or strong principled convictions.
John Edwards in 2008? Maybe that's our answer...
Related Reading
Iraq War Statistics & Results as of May 16, 2007
Bush Vetoes Bill Setting Iraq Troop Withdrawal (U.S. Gov Info)
Rasmussen Reports, April 29, 2007: 52% Oppose Veto of Iraq Funding Bill
Comments
“With this veto, the president has doomed us to repeating a terrible history. President Bush’s current position is hauntingly reminiscent of March 1968 in Vietnam. At that time, both the Secretary of Defense and the President had recognized that the war could not be won militarily - just as our military commanders in Iraq have acknowledged. But not wanting to be tainted with losing a war, President Johnson authorized a surge of 25,000 troops. At that point, there had been 24,000 U.S. troops killed in action. Five years later, when the withdrawal of U.S. troops was complete, we had suffered 34,000 additional combat deaths.”
- Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, USA, Ret.
“By vetoing this bill and failing to initiate an immediate and phased withdrawal, the President has effectively gone AWOL, deserting his duty post, leaving American forces with an impossible mission, suffering wholly unnecessary casualties.”
- Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, USA, Ret.
“The rhetoric of Congress not supporting our troops is pure ‘hogwash’. The real non support of our troops is the Presidential Veto. Vetoing this Bill sends a message to our troops, that the President will fund them to fight but is not concerned about returning them to their families.”
- Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, USANG, Ret.
“The President vetoed our troops and the American people. His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.”
- Maj. Gen. John Batiste, USA, Ret.
“This administration and the previously Republican controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America’s Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever apparent, only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war - alone, without their President’s support.”
- Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, USA, Ret.
“Almost 5 years ago, Congress trusted the President enough to give him the power to transform Iraq. Bush violated that trust and deceived us with a misuse of force. Today, the President violated the trust of the American people, our troops, and their families by vetoing this bill and not choosing to do what is right. He has let us down.”
- Brigadier General John Johns, USA, Ret.