Trouble in Defeatocrat Paradise?
The Defeatocrat wing of the Democratic Party vehemently opposes John Murtha's "Slow Bleed" Plan, saying that it isn’t defeatist enough. Here’s what the Politico is reporting:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is facing a full-blown revolt from liberal House Democrats over the $98 billion Iraq supplemental bill, according to Democratic insiders. Anywhere between 50 to 75 Democrats are now threatening to vote against the bill because it doesn’t go far enough toward ending the war, including setting a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, said the sources. Pelosi and Democratic leaders are expected to postpone markup of the Iraq bill in the House Appropriations Committee by at least a week in order to buy time to resolve the matter.
Liberals are unhappy with the current proposal being discussed by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and the Democratic leadership, which would prevent President Bush from sending more troops to Iraq unless they are certified as being properly equipped, trained and rested to take on combat missions. After weeks of political attacks from Republicans, Murtha softened his original proposal so that Bush can waive the requirements, although the White House would have to report to Congress why they are issuing such waivers. The Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats from swing districts, also wanted Murtha to soften his proposal.
But as happens so often in politics, if you move too far in appeasing one group, you then alienate another, which is what’s happening here. Liberals Dems now don’t want to vote for the Iraq supplemental, with many pointing out to Pelosi and party leaders that they never have voted for one before and aren’t about to start doing so now just because Democrats are in the majority. These Democrats also want to offer their own alternative proposal to cut off Iraq funding immediately as an amendment to the supplemental on the House floor, said Democratic leadership aides.
Putting a ton of restrictions into the supplemental is “going too far”? Murtha’s softened proposal “doesn’t go far enough toward ending the war”? People, that speaks volumes as to how defeatist these liberals are.
This isn’t a revolt by just a handful of the most liberal nutjobs, either. This is a revolt of a third of the House Democrats. I’d expect that representatives like Jim McDermott, Dennis Kucinich, Maurice Hinchey, Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison to say that this doesn’t go far enough. To find out that 75 to 100 Democrats would vote against the bill would be a catastrophic defeat for Pelosi. This would tell the nation that a huge portion of Democrats salivate at the thought of engineering America’s defeat in Iraq.
Liberals Democrats like Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Out of Iraq Caucus, want to end the war now, so they want a date certain for a withdrawal or pullout or “strategic redeployment,” and they want it in the Iraq supplemental or they won’t vote for it. “They figure that we won the election on a promise to end the war, and they want to live up to that promise,” said a senior House Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s a tough place the speaker is in right now, but we’ll work all this out.”
Pelosi has a bit of a problem here. If the Democratic leadership puts a date certain for withdrawal in the bill, there’s a chance that enough Blue Dogs Democrats would defect and vote with Republicans, meaning the bill could [go] down for defeat outright. While that might suit anti-war lawmakers and groups, the political consequences could be disastrous for the party. It would end the Iraq war by default since there would be no more money for combat operations, and Republicans would punish the Democrats for years over it.
This senior Democrat legislator is putting it mildly when he’s quoted as saying that the Speaker is in a rough place right now. I’d say that Ms. Pelosi is in ‘God’s Little Half Acre’- east of the Rock, west of the Hard Place.
This was predictable, even from Election Night. I predicted then that the Defeatocrats would want the House and Senate to vote to end the war. It wasn’t difficult to think that there would be plenty of Democrats who would say that that wouldn’t be smart politics even though they’d love to see America defeated. This group of Democrats would say that they couldn’t vote that way because it’d spell electoral defeat. They’d be right about that.
It’ll be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I suspect that things will get worse for Democrats before it gets better.
