Pat Dollard | Young Americans

Related: Reid Threatens War Funds Again

Politico:

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.

The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.

Indeed, the only war legislation enacted during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.

Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls.

Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.

John Podesta, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, is advising Democrats to try to shift war policy around the edges while carefully setting the stage for an easier withdrawal when the next president takes office.

There may well have been paths not taken this year that would have produced better results.

But what the year has mostly highlighted is that Democrats and anti-war activists were in the grip of two illusions after their triumph in the 2006 elections.

The first illusion is that taking power on Capitol Hill was by its very nature — no matter the precise legislation that emerged — something that would alter the basic dynamics of Iraq policy.

Instead, it’s now clear that even a weakened, and in many ways discredited, president remains the dominant policymaker on Iraq.

For 50 years, legislators of both parties have ceded war-making power to the executive branch, and there is no reversing that in a matter of months — least of all when the opposition party is itself divided over what to do.

What’s more, it turns out that Washington matters less than many Democrats and even many journalists supposed in determining political momentum in the Iraq debate.

Events on the ground — including regular, if still fragmentary, evidence that security is improving somewhat in the wake of the military’s “surge” policy — matter more.

The second illusion is that Democrats could stall substantively and still prosper politically.

A few months ago, many lawmakers were saying something like this: “It’s true we can’t force Bush’s hand on Iraq because we do not have veto-proof majorities. But the longer he sticks with an unpopular war, the better it will be for Democrats, and eventually the moderates and war skeptics in the GOP will stage a full revolt.”

This might yet come true by the next election, in 2008. For now, it looks like substantive weakness — the failure to drive policy changes on Iraq — has reinforced political weakness.

“Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster,” according to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who analyzed public opinion on the nonpartisan Pollster.com.

“The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.”

Continue