Why is it that Republicans are united in their support of an
unpopular war and Democrats are divided in their opposition? How is it that,
speaking purely politically, the war right now seems to be working better as
an issue for Republicans, who are forced to support the unpopular president
and his ill-begotten war, than the Democrats, who are free to oppose it? Is
it a question of leadership? Of competence? Can the Democrats simply not get
their act together?
That is certainly how it looked last week in the House, when the
relieved Republicans – relieved because they finally had something to come
together on and support – turned lemons into lemonade and even won the votes
of 42 Democrats in enacting a phony resolution opposing an immediate
withdrawal of troops that no one was actually proposing. Coming on the heels
of the president's picturesque trip to Iraq, the press played the vote as a
show of Republican unity and Democratic disarray on the afternoon of the eve
of the midterm elections.
This week, the action moves to the Senate, and the Democrats are
in the driver's seat – but it's not clear that the outcome is likely to
demonstrate much more cohesion. On Monday, after reports of endless meetings
and caucuses, the Democratic leadership unveiled a proposed amendment
calling for the "phased redeployment" (translate pullout) of U.S. troop
beginning in 2006, an administration plan to be submitted by the end of 2006
for the continued redeployment-pullout of troops and a "limited mission" for
the troops left behind. The hope was that the wording of the amendment would
be broad enough to allow both those who favored a fixed timetable and those
who feared one to come together behind a single resolution.
Dream on.
Why should people who are running against each other for
president give up their divisions on the one issue that could dominate if
not decide the presidential nominating process two years from now?
So take a guess at who is introducing the counter-amendment to
the leadership proposal being put forward by Sens. Levin, Reed, Feinstein
and Salazar, with the support of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid?
Thirty seconds.
Story Continues Below
If you guessed that John Kerry and Russ Feingold, both all but
declared candidates, would be two out of three – you're right.
Hillary Clinton is one of those who opposes a fixed timetable
for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. She was booed last week for
saying that at a meeting of the left-leaning Take Back America in
Washington. She is also the front-runner in most polls for the Democratic
nomination for president.
As debate opens in the Senate, CNN has released a new poll
showing that some 47 percent of all Americans say they would "definitely
not" vote for Hillary Clinton for president. Is that good news for her
possible opponents, John Kerry and Al Gore? Not exactly, since the same
percent say they would definitely not vote for Kerry, and 48 percent say
they would "definitely not" vote for Gore. What it proves, only, is that no
one on the Democratic side enjoys broad support among independent voters.
Hillary also had the highest affirmative ratings of all those polled, with
22 percent saying they would definitely vote for her.
Democratic primary voters do tend to skew liberal, which is why
it may be in the interest of her would-be opponents to grandstand their
opposition to the war with an amendment of their own.
But the grandstanding also comes at the expense of the party,
as it faces the midterm election, which is why it is so selfish and
shortsighted.
Rather than allow the Democrats to present a united front, the
anti-war senators, in their effort to score points, are allowing the
Republicans to divide and conquer. There will be plenty of time for
presidential politics down the road. This should be the time for Democrats
to unite, and focus on the midterm election.