They don't get it

I must confess that until now, I really thought that the Democrats in congress understood why we put them in the majority, and why we are angry that they gave in to Bush on continuing the occupation of Iraq. I realize now that they just do not get it.

The new Democratic-led Congress is drawing the ire of voters upset with its failure to quickly deliver on a promise to end the Iraq war.

This is reflected in polls that show Congress -- plagued by partisan bickering mostly about the war -- at one of its lowest approval ratings in a decade. Surveys find only about one in four Americans approves of it.

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high."

I am astonished. Obviously, Beltway-itis is a real disease, and not just a pithy insult. Its main symptom is a chronic inability to perceive things as they really are.

Harry Reid thinks the problem is that they "raised the bar too high" in the 2006 elections? He thinks that we are "disappointed" at their failure to clear that bar? If this is what Reid really believes, he is deluded. Americans are not "disappointed" with the performance of congress. We are disgusted.

Nobody thought ending the occupation of Iraq would be easy. Our disgust doesn't come from Democrats' failure to bring it to an end, it comes from their failure to try. It comes from the spectacle of seeing them talk tough for a few weeks, only to cave in and give Bush exactly what he wanted, which was a blank check for the continued open-ended occupation of Iraq. The outcome was no different than if we had left the Republicans in charge.

We gave the Democrats the majority to fight Bush, not to surrender to him. If Reid and Nancy Pelosi had fought Bush for every penny and insisted on time tables, if they had sent him a bill with mandatory benchmarks over and over and over again, only to have him veto it over and over and over again, their approval ratings would be in the 90s.

Instead, the Democrats made two fundamental errors:

• They accepted and validated the Republicans' framing of the issue as one of "funding for the troops; and



• they listended to Republicans and "Democratic strategists" who told them that the public would not support them if they insisted on benchmarks and timetables for withdrawal.

In each case, the problem is that the Democrats simply did not have the courage to fight, which is what we put them in the majority to do. Dissatisfaction with the GOP congressional majority was not so much about disagreement on individual issues, although that factor was significant in a number of respects, such as political corruption and the occupation of Iraq.

In a larger sense, however, the Republicans lost their majority because Americans came to realize that they were nothing but a rubber stamp for George W. Bush's agenda, which Americans oppose overwhelmingly. On every issue, from Iraq to warrantless wiretapping to the repeal of habeas corpus to name just a few Bush outrages, a handful of GOP lawmakers paid lip service to the notion of checks & balances, only to roll over when it came time to vote. For six years, the congress acted as though its constitutional mandate was to support this president, rather than to hold him accountable on behalf of the American people. Americans understand instinctively how wrong and dangerous that mindset is, and in November, we voted for change.

Yes, we expected the new Democratic majority to work to end the occupation. Yes, we expected them to shed light on Bush's illegal spying programs. Yes, we expected them to work to curtail the influence of corporate lobbyists on the legislative process. But those are just details - significant details, certainly, but details nonetheless. In the larger sense, we placed the Democrats in the majority to hold Bush accountable, to restore the constitutional checks and balances that we used to take for granted, and want to be able to take for granted again. We elected them to fight on our behalf, and instead of fighting on what is arguably the most important issue of the day, the occupation of Iraq, they surrendered. They listened to the Republicans who told them that if they opposed Bush on the occupation, Americans would think they were weak. What they failed to understand, and apparently fail to understand still, is that having Bush call you weak doesn't make you look weak. Surrendering to Bush makes you look weak. Being weak makes you look weak.

The Democrats must understand that a majority of Americans feel the ground shifting beneath our feet. We don't recognize our country anymore. We have come to realize that our president is an outlaw and that his administration is a criminal enterprise. We are concerned that under the stewardship of George W. Bush, control of our government is slipping from our grasp, and that it is ceasing to function as a repository of our will. We suspect that our government has stopped fearing us, as it should, and has become instead something that we must fear. We are looking to congress to restore the proper balance to the relationship between the government and the governed. We knew that the Republicans would never do this. They made it clear that they did not even recognize the need to do so. Democrats won the majority because they convinced us that they did recognize that need. Their failure so far to hold Bush accountable is what makes us doubt that they really understand what we elected them to do.

'The entire government has failed us.'

Olbermann:

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the “beginning of the end” of Mr. Bush’s “carte blanche” in Iraq, about how this is a “first step.”

Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning... is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.

Because this “first step”… is a step right off a cliff.

Thanks, but no thanks

If I was Barney, I'd steer clear of George W. Bush's boots for the next couple of days.

Congressional Dems have told the president what he can do with his "invitation" to come to the White House and "discuss" their bills to fund his war.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking Tuesday at a news conference in San Francisco, forcefully rejected Bush's invitation -- as had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada several hours earlier at a Capitol appearance.

"What the president invited us to do is to come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants," Pelosi said. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Sen. Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind.

"Leader Reid and I have long said to the president (that) we want to talk to you -- the American people want us to work together. They want us to fund the troops, they want us to wind down this war. And let's work together to do that," she said.

That "invitation" was a breathtaking strategic mistake on the president's part. It reeks of a freelance operation. He had to have issued it in complete defiance of what Rove and Cheney were telling him. It was an unmistakable sign of weakness. If his position on this matter were stronger, he never would have reached out to the Democrats this way. What an embarrassment. He is probably punching through the sheetrock tonight.

'Calm down with the threats'

UPDATED WITH LONGER VIDEO CLIP & EXTENDED QUOTE



I stand in awe of Nancy Pelosi. She just taught our president a lesson in being presidential.

George W. Bush has been on one sustained tantrum for the last couple of weeks. He never misses an opportunity to issue warnings about the grave consequences of not letting his occupation of Iraq continue indefinitely.

Here is Bush on March 19, in remarks regarding the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion:

It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating. If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country. In time, this violence could engulf the region. The terrorists could emerge from the chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan, which they used to plan the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. For the safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen.

Days later, on March 23, Bush attacked Democrats for writing a timetable for withdrawal into his request for supplemental war funding.

Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

The president's rhetoric intensified the next day in his national radio address.

By choosing to make a political statement and passing a bill they know will never become law, the Democrats in Congress have only delayed the delivery of the vital funds and resources our troops need. The clock is running. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April 15, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions -- and so will their families.

And today, the Democrat bashing continued as Bush fed some red meat to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.

Shrill, ain't he?

Well, in a brilliant move, House Speaker Pelosi just turned the tables on Little Mister Fussypants. How did she do it? Mommy gave junior a spanking. In public.

"On this very important matter, I would extend the hand of friendship to the president, just to say to him, 'calm down with the threats.' There's a new congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours.

"This war must end. The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of the war. Let's see how we can work together.

"This war is diminishing the strength of our military, not honoring our commitment to our veterans, and not holding the Iraqi government accountable.

"When the president says he wants to veto this bill, he says, 'I am vetoing accountability.'"

Calm down with the threats. It doesn't get any better than that.

See the video here.

Bush has grown more hysterical by the day as it has dawned on him that he cannot intimidate this congress into bowing before his majesty the way the previous one did. With the Iraq timetable and the U.S. Attorney purge investigation happening at the same time, he is beside himself. It's all falling apart around him, and he is responding to it by throwing fits and making threats. Presidents should be better at handling adversity. Nancy Pelosi just showed him how.

Well done, Madam Speaker.