Despite all the talk of standing up
to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control
of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction,
Democrats caved in on the Iraq War funding bill.
It wasn't long ago that Nancy Pelosi
and Harry Reid were taunting the president with Democratic
resolutions setting a surrender date for leaving Iraq.
But Pelosi and Reid blinked. They
showed the Democrats true colors. The Democratic Party is the
party of surrender. The party of appeasement. It's the party of
defeat. It's the party without convictions.
The Democrats control both houses of
Congress. They claim that the majority of Americans are with
them on the Iraq issue, but they waived the white flag on their
much-ballyhooed withdrawal date.
President Bush, at the weakest
moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals,
getting the war funding he requested without setting timetables
for leaving Iraq.
The Democrats, trying to put a spin
on their complete failure to stand up to the president, said
they'll try again in the fall. Good luck with that.
There's a reason Democrats have
trouble convincing American voters they can lead this country
during the global struggle against Islamic Fascism. That's
because they can't. They lack a key ingredient: Backbone.
The inability of the
Democratic-controlled Congress to get its way on war funding
will dog the party through the 2008 election.
And how will Hillary Rodham Clinton
and Barack Obama explain to voters that they voted against
funding 165,000 U.S. troops in Iraq? In an obvious attempt to
cater to the far left, Clinton and Obaba voted against the
Clinton and Obama have chosen to use
the John Kerry "Flip-Flop" strategy that worked so well for the
Massachusetts liberal in 2004. Both Democratic front-runners
began their campaign for the White House criticizing a deadline
for a troop withdrawal. Now, Clinton and Obama are in favor of a
surrender timetable. They were among the 14 Senators who voted
against the war funding bill. But 80 Senators, including the
majority of Democrats, backed the war spending bill.
While the far left will be pleased
to have Clinton and Obama in its back-pocket, mainstream
Democrats have to wonder what their front-runners are willing to
say or do to get elected.
That’s always been the problem for
Democrats. They don't stand for anything. They are the party of
appeasement, whether it be to the left-wing fringe of their own
party (George Soros, Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, Cindy Sheehan,
Michael Moore, Sean Penn) or America's enemies.
Joining Clinton and Obama, Sen.
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, also running for president,
voted against the legislation, The only candidate from the
Senate who supported the war funding bill was Delaware Sen. Joe
"This bold stand by three of the
four presidential candidates in the Senate won't soon be
forgotten," according to Eli Pariser, executive director of
MoveOn.org's political action committee, which has forced
Democratic candidates to veer far left to gain support of the
party's small, but well-funded left-wing fringe.
Not that anybody cares, but several
other Democratic candidates who don't have a chance of winning —
John "The Haircut" Edwards of North Carolina and New Mexico Gov.
Bill "Really, I'm Spanish" Richardson — also favor surrender in
Democrats have a real problem on
their hands. They decided to stand toe-to-toe with the president
on Iraq funding, but blinked. They have the votes, but have not
American voters don't want a
president who will surrender at the first sign of trouble.
That's why it's going to be hard for Democrats to prove they can
lead this country in a time of war.