Before the Thanksgiving break, an appropriations bill that would have supplied money to the US Military on the field of fire was shot down by the Senate minority because it contained timetables for withdrawal. The troops have been left languishing ever since. I had suggested that it was a good idea to reallocate the pork funding to get the troops through.
Since returning from their break, a break which was much longer than the soldiers under fire get, the Democrats came up with a new plan: they'll drop the timetable and half the pork if the President will sign the bill. As far as Bush is concerned, they are still $13 billion dollars over budget.
Over the weekend, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey was informed that there is no deal so long as the pork remained: Bush threatened to veto this new $500 billion bill that would provide at least partial funding for the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to boosting funding for Democratic priorities such as school aid and health care.
"...if you take those bills down to the president's level... it is very hard for me to understand how earmarks could survive. It's not a threat. It's a reality."
Poor baby. But I have to ask, is this the same Democratic leadership who, in the run up to the 2006 elections promised to eliminate pork?
The LA Times may snark that Bush "has adopted a new role as fiscal watchdog", which is true, but they also have to remember that while the Democrats believe their win was an anti-war mandate, the Republicans view their loss was as a result of being perceived by their base as spending too much.
Republicans are looking to get right with their voters.
The Democratic leadership has clearly misunderstood their mandate, because if there really was a popular uprising against the war, they would not have failed so miserably over the last year in ending it.
Or even limiting it.
The Democrats are getting squeezed none the less, because while Bush threatens a veto
...senior Democrats are facing a restive liberal base incensed by talk that a budget deal would provide more money for the war in Iraq without attaching any conditions aimed at forcing troop withdrawals.
Additional war funding would represent a major concession to the president, who has demanded that Congress abandon its push to impose a schedule for bringing troops home.
And this from a President who was declared a lame duck from the moment the new Congress took the oath.
The fact is Democrats have forgotten how to govern. They have forgotten how to compromise.
Yet, these days, their favorite thing to do is complain about how Iraqis can't settle their partisan differences.
Maybe they should all go to Iraq and show them how it's done.
