The Democrats in a Box [Sorry, Tommy]

The Weekly Standard ^ | 9/14/2002 | Stephen F. Hayes

[NYS_Eric]

The Democrats in a Box
Bush will insist on an Iraq vote, and Congress looks unlikely to defy him.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/23/2002, Volume 008, Issue 02

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS seem to agree on at least one aspect of the current debate over U.S. policy in Iraq: President Bush will eventually have bipartisan backing from Congress for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. "The strong presumption is that the president will get strong bipartisan support on a resolution," says Dan Gerstein, communications director for Senator Joseph Lieberman.

How and when he gets a vote on such a resolution, however, are questions that split Democrats. Several senators--Georgia's Zell Miller, John Edwards of North Carolina, and Lieberman prominent among them--have indicated that they will vote in favor of such a resolution regardless of when it's presented. Others rushed to praise the president's U.N. speech last Thursday, and then promptly set about throwing up additional obstacles to an expedited vote. In that second group are senators Joe Biden, John Kerry, Carl Levin, and, most important, Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

The remaining opposition is largely conditional. Biden called Bush's address to the U.N. General Assembly "brilliant," but said that he doesn't want a vote before the elections, lest the debate become too politicized. Daschle trotted out a list of questions he needs answered before he could support a resolution, although he allowed that a vote before Congress recesses a month from now is "likely." Levin wants to give the president a sort of calibrated authorization--little bits here and there--a proposal one GOP senator calls "nuts." But the strangest idea came from Kerry, who in essence, recommended a congressional resolution calling for a U.N. resolution before Congress votes on a final resolution.

The president was dismissive of such an approach in comments he made Friday. "Democrats waiting for the U.N. to act? I can't imagine an elected . . . member of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives saying 'I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision," Bush said with a muffled laugh. "It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States."

Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who has become a leading voice for conservatives in the upper chamber, also criticized those who would delay a vote on a congressional resolution. "Liberals are now saying this is a multi-stage process. First, the U.N. speech; second, the U.N. debate; third, a U.N. resolution; and only then can we take this up," he says. "They want to slice and dice it. This has to happen now. We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

Kyl says he called National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to suggest that the president send a letter to Congress formally requesting a vote. Administration officials say that such a letter is not yet in the works, but they are leaving that option open. Regardless of how it happens, though, the president will demand a congressional vote before Congress leaves town in early October. "The president answered that question himself with one word: yes," says White House congressional liaison Nick Calio. "So, yes, we are going to be insistent."

While administration officials won't characterize the threat from Saddam as "imminent," they contend that the matter is urgent enough to warrant immediate action in Congress. "If Iraq did something tomorrow and Americans got hurt, what do you think the people on the Hill would be saying to us?" comments a senior White House official.

Although Bush has not yet formally requested a vote, he has made his feelings clear to leaders of both chambers: He wants an accelerated vote. The administration is forming bipartisan working groups in both the House and the Senate that are expected to meet two to three times weekly until the president has gotten congressional approval.

Zell Miller, a frequent Bush supporter, is one of a handful of Democrats whom the White House is counting on to make the case in his party. "Without question, I am with the president," says Miller. "I am already convinced. He has made the case with me."

Administration officials concede that they have "more work to do" with Democrats, but they are confident that much of the remaining opposition will disappear over the coming weeks, as the president details the threat. The U.N. speech, says a national security official with knowledge of administration planning, "wasn't our first shot, it wasn't our last shot, and it certainly wasn't our best shot" at making the case against Saddam Hussein. "Put it this way--the U.N. speech was the first act of a three-act play. If [Democrats] are bailing on their opposition to the president now, wait until people see Act II, when there will be new revelations about just how serious a threat we face."


Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

[dubyagee]

Administration officials concede that they have "more work to do" with Democrats, but they are confident that much of the remaining opposition will disappear over the coming weeks, as the president details the threat.

It's a shame we have to 'pander' to these people, in part, to keep their own butts from being blown off the planet.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Well at least they've finally made it official:

Democrats consider themselves (as represented by their election chances) more important than national security.

[Wphile]

Let's start referring to the bastard as Sen. Tom Daschle, D-Iraq.

Daschle's tactics are just showing the American people that the Dems haven't a clue when it comes to national security and defense. And their insinuation that they should wait until the UN adopts a resolution is totally insincere. So, if the UN adopts a resolution, will the Dems then support a war like they did in 1990? When only 4 Dems supported the Gulf War and the vote occurred after the UN resolution? Daschle seems to always forget that all this is on the record and so easily retrieved, like his blustery language when Clinton wanted to take some sort of action with Iraq. Daschle is a partisan to the core. It's all about the party, not the country.

[lewislynn]

Zell Miller is a Good Guy. Why does he stay on the side of the Bad Guys? Come on, Zell, you can do it!

Be careful, not to make comparisons but the same thing used to be said about Trafficant.

[Paleo Conservative]

As much as I loathe the man, I wouldn't hold this against him. If Thune wins, the percentage would be similar. The strength of our Republic is that smaller states are well represented in one legislative chamber. Without it, California and New York would start telling the nation how high to jump.

That's why leftists hate the way representation is allocated in the Senate and the Electoral College. Leftists beleive that radicals living in large urban areas ought to be able to dictate to the rest of the country because of the large number of votes they can accumulate there.

[Paleo Conservative]

And their insinuation that they should wait until the UN adopts a resolution is totally insincere.

What President Bush ought to do is request Congress vote on articles of war. I think we can depend on Tom Delay to schedule a vote for early October. This would then put pressure on the Senate to vote. Go ahead let the RATS filibuster on Capitol Hill against the use of force instead of campaigning in their home states. Furthermore, there are some Representatives such as John Thune of South Dakota who are Senate canditates. By voting for the use of force against Iraq, the stalling tactics of the RATS can be used by these Republican candidates against their RAT opponents.

[mwl1]

Of course. The strategy of Senator Daschle (D-Iraq) is suicidal for his Senate incumbents, and he is poised to return after the elections with about 7 fewer RAT senators if he persists.

[Paleo Conservative]

Think about it. While his switching parties would hand control back to Republicans, he'd appear just as craven and spineless as Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. Have no idea if the guy even wants to switch parties. But if he does, he'd probably want to do it in a much more classier way. Not right after he was elected as a Democrat sic (Republican) by his constituents and purely for his own gain the way Jeffords did it.

Zell Miller has a lot more leverage over the Senate by remaining in the DemcRAT party than by leaving it. Switching parties is usually something that a younger politician would do. Zell Miller came out of political retirement, because of the untimely and unexpected death of Paul Coverdale. If he were 25 years younger he might have switched, but it's not worth it now.

[mwl1]

I am bumping this article because everyone needs to read the final paragraphs.

[okie01]

The U.N. speech, says a national security official with knowledge of administration planning, "wasn't our first shot, it wasn't our last shot, and it certainly wasn't our best shot" at making the case against Saddam Hussein. "Put it this way--the U.N. speech was the first act of a three-act play. If [Democrats] are bailing on their opposition to the president now, wait until people see Act II, when there will be new revelations about just how serious a threat we face."

We shall see what we shall see, shan't we?

[Wait4Truth]

Newsweek just released a new poll today. The President's approval rating has jumped 9% in the last 2 weeks - from 61% to 70%. The best part is that Newsweek is consistantly about 5% under most other polls. When they were showing 61%, other polls were showing 65% to 69%. We are winning and the RATS look more stupid by the day.

[agincourt1415]

A well planned assault on Iraq would put Bush in the 85% range (approval ratings) overnight.

[mwl1]

Thank you for this information. Very helpful.

[aristeides]

It's all about the party, not the country.

I don't understand how the DemocRATic Party gains from opposing this war.

[mwl1]

I don't understand how the DemocRATic Party gains from opposing this war.

I cannot fathom it either. Daschle's path is suicidal for his party. And he is not a stupid man... he is coy, conniving, and corrupt... does not make sense to me.

[Mitchell]

wait until people see Act II, when there will be new revelations about just how serious a threat we face."

Act I already included the introduction as a mainstream idea that the West Nile virus is a biowarfare test. Act II is going to be very interesting.

[Nogbad]

Leahy yesterday refused to be interviewed by CNN about his comments.

CNN says they are going to keep trying.

[Mitchell]

Leahy yesterday refused to be interviewed by CNN about his comments.

What happened when Wolf Blitzer talked to him? Did Leahy simply refuse comment on West Nile virus?

[Wphile]

The democrat party doesn't stand to gain but Daschle has such tunnel vision he still thinks he needs to oppose Bush's every move in order to court his base, I guess. The stalling tactic to move the vote until after the elections is singularly a party move - he's trying to protect the dems from voicing their real opinions. Personally, I think a good share are opposed to the war.

[okie01]

Forgot to ping you on #30.