Democratic voters growing impatient with Congress

I found this off McClatchy Newspapers:

CHICAGO - In Washington, Democrats are blaming Republicans for the Senate's failure so far to vote on a resolution opposing a troop increase in Iraq.

But in the heartland, some voters say such excuses no longer are good enough.

Having banked on the promise that Democrats would force a change of course in Iraq if they won control of Congress, some of the people who helped the Democrats get there are growing impatient.

They're frustrated that Democrats sank so much energy into a nonbinding resolution then dropped the bipartisan plan of Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., like a hot potato when Republican leaders who support President Bush maneuvered them into a corner.

All the finagling has gotten in the way of a formal debate or vote in the Senate on Bush's plans for Iraq.

The House of Representatives, sensing voters' impatience, is expected to go ahead next week with its own plan rather than follow the Senate.

"The people spoke pretty clearly in November, and nothing's happened," said Bill Fahrenwald, a marketer from Blue Island, Ill., a Chicago suburb. "It's pretty discouraging."

"They're being overly cautious, to the point of really not accomplishing anything," said Lisa Rone, a psychiatrist from Oak Park, Ill. "I thought the Democrats would be much more clear about that vote and be much more active."

This battle in the Senate on Iraq is only starting to begin. Senate Democrats were willing to compromise with the Republicans in passing the non-binding Warner resolution, but the resolution failed due to Republican CYA and possible White House pressure. The key to this pressure was the muddying of waters with alternative resolutions supporting the troops and war funding.

This is just the start of the debate. The real fireworks will start when the appropriations bills come up in the Senate:

National polling shows that a majority of Americans support a resolution opposing the troop increase. National independent polling organizations haven't assessed reaction to the stalled Senate debate.

It's only about a month into the 110th Congress, and the appropriations bills - where Democrats have the real power to attach strings to military spending if they can muster the will and support - are weeks away from consideration. Still, there's mounting pressure on Democrats from their base across the country.

At least 22 state legislatures are considering resolutions urging Congress to stop the deployment of more U.S. troops to Iraq, said David Sirota, the Montana-based co-chairman of the Progressive States Network:

They are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.

Senate Majority Leader Reid said that when the Senate returned from the recess at the end of the month, Democrats would redouble their efforts. They may take up whatever Iraq resolution the House passes. Or they'll look for ways to impose conditions or deadlines on continued U.S. involvement.

There is a tremendous amount of pressure mounting from both the American public, through national polls, and resolutions through state legislatures, to oppose the Bush troop surge plan. The question to ask here is will the Democrats find the spine needed to force the Bush White House and Republicans to stop this war through cutting military spending? It will be the appropriation bills that kick-start the Iraq war debate in the Senate. The Republicans were able to delay the vote by setting a trap for the Democrats:

Many Republicans say the Warner-Levin resolution is pointless and that without the force of law it could demoralize the troops. They say the president's troop increase in Iraq should be given a chance.

So they said they'd block consideration of the resolution unless Democrats also debated a resolution by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would support the troops and take no position on a troop increase.

Democrats saw a trap: If they backed Gregg's resolution, then didn't get 60 votes on Warner-Levin, the only formal statement out of the Senate would voice no opposition to the troop increase. If they rejected Gregg's, opponents would run ads accusing them of hurting the troops.

Their decision: Hold off on a formal debate. Senators who are critical of Iraq policy have been waiting a long time for a debate, though, which they couldn't get when Republicans were in charge.

The Democrats were able to avoid this Republican trap. But the pressure of the American public to stop this war will be on both the Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans have shown themselves to be continuing to kow-tow to the Bush administration's war escalation--perhaps to the point of destroying their own political futures in 2008. The Democrats, however, are in a political quandary. They were voted into control of Congress by the American public's disgust with the Bush administration's war in Iraq. The new Democratic Senate leadership attempted to compromise with the Republicans in creating a non-binding resolution opposing the Bush administration's war in Iraq. The Democrats failed. Now the question becomes will the Senate Democrats force even stronger resolutions, backed by cuts in war funding, into potential debate and vote? The Senate Democrats need to realize that they are going to have to force this issue by bringing stronger resolutions on the floor, backed by cuts in war funding. The Republicans and Bush White House will certainly respond with their own arguments that the Democrats are against the troops, but I would say that such arguments are hollow. And certainly, such stronger Democratic resolutions will never pass the closely divided Senate. But these stronger resolutions will sharply the two political party positions on Iraq, and will force both the Senate Democrats and Republicans to take a firm position on Iraq, of which they will be held accountable in 2008. These are the debates that the leaders in both parties fear, taking a firm stand on Iraq--one position or another. The appropriations bills will also force the senators to take a stand on Iraq--one position or another. It will be these votes that will haunt the senators of both parties when 2008 comes around, and we will still be stuck in this meat grinding war in Iraq.

The time for the senators to take a stand on Iraq is rapidly coming.