Dems Have Voted Themselves Into a Box

The decision by the Dem leadership to proceed with an Iraq surrender bill that was guaranteed for a veto has put them in a difficult box. Having stood up to the president in a quixodic attempt to make a point, what do they do now? They are already risking criticism for failing to support the troops by wasting all this time, and should they pursue another such bill, the tide will quickly turn against them among the reasonable members of our society. Should they do the right thing and vote funds for Iraq without the surrender provisions, their lefty base will be apoplectic.

The standoff gives Republicans leverage, because even with the liberals' votes, Democrats don't have enough support to override Bush's veto. It will force Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to seek more Republican help in drafting a new bill that Bush might accept, her allies and opponents say.

"I think the Democrats are in a box," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said in an interview Tuesday. "We're pretty resolute on our side. We are not going to tie this funding to any type of withdrawal deadline or any type of redeployment deadline."

Some Democrats believe the GOP solidarity will crack over time, noting that polls show heavy public support for a withdrawal plan.

Lawmakers in both parties agree that a workable compromise is a huge challenge in the coming days or weeks. Because Democrats control the House and Senate, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.

I hope the GOP can hold together on this one. There's no reason to cave to the Dems or the radical left since it won't gain them one thing politically if they do.

This next bill, whatever it is, also poses a threat to the Dem presidential candidates who will be voting on it, and as Dick Morris points out, may open the door for John Edwards to take over the anti-war block:

Soon it will be time for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to face a moment of truth and decide whether he is going to lead the anti-war movement or cave in under administration pressure.

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) move toward an accommodation with the White House over funding for the war in Iraq, they are also moving toward a civil war within their own party. If Pelosi and Reid agree to give Bush a new bill providing funding for the war without a deadline for troop withdrawal, they will redeem their party’s image nationally and show their support for the troops, but they will alienate their left wing. A bitter and divisive battle will ensue — one that could cost the Democrats the White House in 2008.

The left, led by John Edwards, is not about to accept mushy language holding the Iraqi regime accountable for its lack of progress, especially if the provision leaves Bush in charge of assessing what progress is being made. Why, they will ask, did we elect a Democratic Congress if the war is just going to drag on?

If Pelosi and Reid cave in to Bush, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) will most likely support their compromise to preserve her hawkish credibility and offset doubts about a woman’s ability to be commander in chief. With Edwards leading the chorus of critics, the question is: Will Obama join the compromise or ally with the left in voting against it? On this question the success or failure of his candidacy may well hinge.

To date, Obama has portrayed himself to the left of Hillary on the war by reminding voters that he opposed it in 2002 when Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards each voted to begin it. That historical differential will suffice until a more current vote takes place. Then Obama will have to decide which he is — a dove or a hawk.

The problem with most Dems is that until they read the polls, they don't know whether they're a dove or a hawk, and that's sad. I'd have more respect for them if they were consistent in their views and didn't waver with ever turn of the war.