In the week just concluded, the Senate has debated a variety of measures related to the war in Iraq. The only measure which passed was one to denounce MoveOn for for its attack on General David Petraeus. By that measure, it was the most productive week the Senate has had on Iraq in months. But if Democrats failed to hamper the Iraq mission, it was not for lack of trying. They offered three amendments to change the conduct of the war–all of them amendments that had been offered and defeated before. How did they fare this time around? Senator Levin offered an amendment to require the administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. On July 18, the Senate voted against cloture by a vote of 52-47 (where 60 votes are required). On September 21, a similar amendment by Senator Levin also failed to win cloture (47-47)–a loss of five votes (even with Senator Tim Johnson having returned). Senator Feingold offered an amendment to cut off all funding for the Iraq war. On May 16, the Senate voted against cloture by a margin of 29-67. On September 20, a similar amendment failed by a margin of 28-70. Senator Webb offered an amendment to specify terms of troop deployments. On July 11, the Senate failed to invoke cloture by a margin of 56-41. On September 19, a similar amendment failed by a margin of 56-44. Senate Democrats lost ground on all 3 of their major proposals to ‘change course’ in Iraq. The Politico reports that Senator Reid’s ‘no compromise’ attitude (one apparently dictated by MoveOn) is responsible for this backsliding:
Undoubtedly this is at least partially true. Reid has avoided a more bipartisan approach that might have fared better. There’s some talk that Democrats who are disappointed to see that they have taken a step backward may push for a bipartisan approach next week. But this whole episode points up a glaring miscalculation by Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi. They decided months ago that the best course for Democrats–politically–was to oppose everything the president proposed on Iraq. They staked everything on a September showdown with the president–gambling that the pressure of anti-war groups would lead Republicans to sue for an end to the war. They even took some slings and arrows from the Netroots when they allowed legislation to pass to fund the war–figuring that they could get Republican dissidents to end the war, so there would be no Democratic fingerprints. But where do the Democrats stand today? The president’s hand is stronger. The surge will run its course and phase down on the administration’s timetable. Moderates in both parties are complaining that they have been lied to. And the moderate Democrats are facing potential primary challengers–challenges encouraged by their liberal colleagues. How are leaders like Reid and Pelosi viewed by their troops now?
