What Do We Do About the Dems?

I know that everyday Dems have been rather saddened by the news of the "compromise" of the spending bill. In fact, on talk radio last night, I had heard phone calls saying that they were so incensed at what happened that they wanted to change their voter affiliation to "Decline to State" as a show of no-confidence in the Democratic leaning Congress.

However, I tend to have a different view on the turn of events. Yes, in my heart of hearts, I wish that there were more Dems in the mold of Sen. Feingold, Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Dennis Kucinich who would stand up and voice their opinions anyway despite the Republican stranglehold that seems to be over government these days. It is true that I would like the Dems to gain a little backbone and fight back beyond a mere exchange of words. I would like for them to be more consolidated in terms of building efforts to gain support among the American populace because this is certainly a time in which the government does not have our best interests at heart.

But, I think that the Dems shouldn't have given in to let President Bush get what he wants: no time-table in terms of pulling the troops out of Iraq. When I heard last night that the latest version of the bill would not have this stipulation included, I just shook my head. Boy, I ask, what other political commentators have inquired throughout the day: "In this concession, what did the Dems get out of it?" Heck. It seemed that President Bush and his cronies didn't lose a damned thing in the fight to bring the troops home. It seemed as if he had gotten things his way without even giving in anything on his part to do so.

I would wish that Speaker of the House Pelosi would finally put her foot down and tear up the latest version of the bill. It would be a show of force to just tell President Bush, "Too bad" and keep on rolling with the past version. Mr. Bush could scream and yell. He, as well as the Karl Rove, could send out Republican talking points to the news outlets ad nauseum with special beatdowns by Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews and the rest.

But the point would have been made. Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and the rest of the Dems would have said no to Mr. Bush and his demands because the majority of the American people do not want this war in Iraq to go on. And if they, among a group of others in their platform, would have faced the camera and said exactly that, it would be seen as a position of strength that goes beyond compromises.

This is the time not to worry about the effects such a decision might have in Election 2008. The bill is representative of an issue that has torn the nation, if not the world, at the seams. And there needs to be movement against "staying the course" and pouring more funds into a situation that hasn't made any progress since it has started. It should say something when Mr. Bush's own party, the GOP, had demanded a show of progress "or else" (and we still don't know to this day what the "or else" means).

Ignore the Rovian talking points. Stop believing the hype about the fear campaign that is used to keep us in line. It's time for the people to compel the Dems to have courage in their fight against the President in order to set things right and bring our troops home.