It's All Harry Reid's Fault

That's the new story line from Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush and his increasingly hugely unpopular war. The story line is that somehow there would be over 60 votes for a change in policy but Reid, by insisting on deadlines, is forcing, yes, forcing, Republican "moderates", aka wimps, like Voinovich, Lugar, Warner, and Alexander to support Bush's policies in the Senate.

You can listen to this argument being advanced by David Brooks on the Jim Lehrer News Hour during the Shields-Brooks segment that aired on July 20, 2007. You can read it in the Washington Post editorial that ran on July 21, 2007. You can see it in the comments that George Voinovich made in the New York Times about how the Democrats are politicizing the war. You can read it here in the L.A. Times.

Why is this message being repeated? Because Republicans realize that they are being killed politically by Bush and his war. They want to distance themselves from it in the public mind, but, on the other hand, they don't want to tick off Bush's supporters in the Republican Party. So here's what they and their supporters in the media want: They want to pass a resolution that can't be enforced but that sounds good on paper so they can say they did something and they want it to be bi-partisan so that Democrats can't use Bush's war against them.

Well, here's a news flash for so-called Republican moderates like Voinovich: Harry Reid wasn't chosen Senate Majority Leader to make your life easier. Here's another news flash: Those of us who are Democrats don't really care if you take a political hit.

Here's what Democrats ought to say to Republicans like Voinovich: If the Congress passes a bill that calls for a withdrawal from Iraq, without "timelines" over Bush's veto and he doesn't comply, will you vote for impeachment? If the answer is no, then what good is the approach that they are supposedly in favor of?

See, the problem with media outlets like the Washington Post and the News Hour is that they act like we are supposed to take what Bush says seriously, as if he is a person interested in compromise. What Democrats like Reid understand is that Bush doesn't believe in either compromise or telling the truth. The only way you can deal with someone like that is give him or her absolutely no room to maneuver. Then, and only then, can you get him to possibly compromise. This guy is a bully and the only things that bullies understand is power. To guys like Bush and Rove compromise is another word for weakness.

This is why national political reporters who are creatures of the culture of the Washington Beltway just don't understand either Bush or Democrats who stand up to him. These reporters believe that compromise is how you get things done. Political actors who reject compromise and insist on getting their own way baffle these reporters. "That's just not how you play the game" is their attitude. Well, the game has changed. Harry Reid gets it, the Washington Post editorial board doesn't.

Democrats Should Let Immigration Bill Die

According to this report from the Washington Post in the June 12, 2007 edition, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is considering allowing the immigration bill to go back on the Senate's calendar. Our advice, for what it is worth, is "Don't."

Democrats need to focus on trying to get white working class families to support its 2008 nominee. This group, especially white males, is important to our party. We should have their support because on economic issues we are far ahead of the Republicans, but we often lose their support because of our party's stand on social issues.

Although cast as an economic issue by its sponsors, the status of illegal immigrants is a social issue because it affects the social make-up of our country. By siding with Bush and his corporate buddies to pass this bill, we run the risk of alienating millions of working class males who see this bill as threatening the economic well being of their families. We run the risk of giving the Republicans another populist issue to use against Democrats in 2008.

Right now it is clear to Americans of Hispanic descent who is responsible for this bill's defeat and that is the Republican Senators, most of whom voted against cutting off debate on this bill. There is a good possibility that the Hispanic backlash will be against them and not against Democrats. Continuing to push this bill, however, runs the risk of identifying our party with Bush. Given his horrible poll numbers, this would be a mistake.

Rolling Stone Panel of Experts on the Iraq War: We've Already Lost

If you click here, you will see an article that appeared in Rolling Stone magazine in March of this year about the Iraq War. Rolling Stone did something that the Bush Administration failed to do before it got us involved in this disaster. It assembled a independent panel of experts and asked them what they thought was happening in Iraq. Their conclusion? The war in Iraq is already lost and the only question is how big a mess will it turn out to be.

One of these experts is a retired General who served on the Joint Chief of Staffs during the first Gulf War. He is Thomas McPeak. This is a quote from the article: "Iran's influence will have been increased geometrically. We're already the losers in this, and now we become the big-time losers."

So if you hear some right-wing blowhard condemning Harry Reid for telling the President the truth about Iraq, ask him or her to explain McPeak's analysis in Rolling Stone magazine. Oh, yes, and also ask them how many relatives they have serving in Iraq.

Senate Republicans: Too Clever by Half?

According to an article in the Washington Post, Harry Reid is no longer backing the Warner-Levin Resolution, which is 1500 words. Instead he is backing the House Resolution which is against Bush's escalation of troops in Iraq and reaffirms support for funding the troops that are already there. (You can read the WP article by clicking on the link in this entry's title.) Reid believes he can get the House resolution before the Senate for a vote in about a week or so. This, of course, will put the Republicans once again in the spot of having to either support Bush or respect the will of the American people, of whom about 60% or more are opposed to any troop increase in Iraq.

Those pundits who thought that the Republicans get the better of Harry Reid when they successfully fought off an attempt to end their filibuster of the Warner Resolution should think again. Now, Republicans are going to face another difficult vote. One that once more will put several of their at-risk incumbents on record as either supporting Bush, and thereby ticking off independent voters, or defying Bush, thereby ticking off the conservative base of the party. It would have been far better to have let a vote take place on the Warner Resolution and be done with it.