Are fears of “Bush retaliation” for weakness over for Democrats? R. Parry

autorank

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-12-07 05:33 PM
Original message

Are fears of “Bush retaliation” for weakness over for Democrats? R. Parry

This is the critical question that Parry outlines so well in this brief article. He notes the fears that gripped our Congressional delegation in the wake of 911, the spectacular failures of Cheney/Bush, and their loss of support by all but 30% of the populace.The conclusion is that the reduction of fears of “Bush retaliation” in 2006 will soon approach zero as the Democrats go with the flow of public opinion. Excellent for the party loyal.

www.ConsortiumNews.com

Are Democrats Afraid of a Myth?

"The Wizard lost his mojo"
spoke the oracle Toto.
Proceed to victory!

By Robert Parry
March 12, 2007

Over the next few weeks, the congressional Democratic majorities must decide how scared they still are of George W. Bush and his right-wing attack machine. Or put differently, can a weakened President still intimidate Democrats by questioning their patriotism or doubting their support for the troops?

Bush has thrown down the gauntlet with his demand for another $105 billion in war funding without “strings” attached. He also has warned that he would veto any measure that seeks to limit his discretion over how to fight the war in Iraq.

Two to five years ago, the Democrats – then in the minority – would have been quaking in fear about crossing Bush, the self-described “war president.” They knew to expect a barrage of insults from Washington’s influential right-wing and neoconservative pundits and a hefty GOP investment in 30-second attack ads in the next campaign.

But now with most Americans critical of Bush’s conduct of the war and after disclosures about neglectful treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed and other medical centers, the political calculus has changed. Indeed, it’s possible that Democrats would face more heat from voters by giving Bush another blank check.

Those two alternatives – “strings attached” or “blank check” – are likely to become the stark legislative choices in the weeks ahead since the House Democratic leadership has decided to put forward a compromise plan to start a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Me.

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-12-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message

1. Looks Like You Could Use

A :kick: and R

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AtomicKitten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Mar-12-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message

2. The IWR was a blank check.

Edited on Mon Mar-12-07 06:30 PM by AtomicKitten

Cutting off funding will be suicide for the Democrats which is precisely why the GOP and WH are taunting the Dems to do it. The "strings attached" may be the best option, i.e., troop limits, targeted spending, deadlines, etc. and enforce them, although I don't think that will satisfy many here. Still it may be the most doable approach. The GOP Wrecking Machine will be hideous regardless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 06:46 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.