Nooo! We Were Meant To Capitulate To The Insurgents!

Dems capitulate to whoever is left in the room:

The Capitulation Bill: "Obviously it's a good move"

by Matt Stoller, Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:50:50 AM EST

The crazy thing about the fight is that Democratic insiders are convinced that capitulation is the right strategy.  They actually believe that this will put pressure on the Republicans in the fall, and that standing up to Bush is a bad idea.

Not quoted was a Dem leader saying "Bush was the only guy in the room, so we surrendered to him.  If only there had been a representative of the insurgency present, we would surely have stood up to Bush and caved in to the appropriate party."

No doubt!  And had a Chinese take-out delivery guy showed up at the critical juncture, maybe we'd be drafting bills in Chinese.  (You do know I'm making that quote up about surrendering to the insurgency, right?  At least, I hope I am.)

Reaction on the left is brutal (we'll put Tim Fox of John Cole's Balloon Juice in with the lefties on the strength of the best Shakespeare we have seen in a while, but don't expect me to opine on whether he is a lefty or an angry libertarian [and see "WHOZAT", below]): Kos, Jane H of the Firedogs, and Greg Sargent provide flavor; more at Memeorandum (Times, MyDD).

Here is Carl Hulse of the Times:

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

Greg Sargent reacts:

Oooooooooooooo, scary! If we didn't give Bush his way, the White House would have criticized us!

I don't know what to say, other than, the party of defeat lost.  I am still hoping for a vibrant two-party system in which neither party is insane (but I quit holding my breath a long time ago.)

As a companion piece, here is a new poll:

Poll Shows Opposition to Iraq War at All Time High

By DALIA SUSSMAN

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the war began, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Six in 10 Americans surveyed say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, and more than three in four say that things are going badly there — including nearly half who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

Still, the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals.

MORE:  Let's reprise Jack Balkin's thoughts when the Dems surprised everyone (not) by folding up on the Military Commissions bill last fall.  Pose and fold - please let's stop being surprised.

STILL MORE:  I have a separate post on the in or out exchange between Dale franks and Oliver Willis.

WHOZAT?  What's in a name?  Tim F of John Cole's Balloon Juice wonders who Tim Fox is.  Good question - I would see an opthomalogist to check my vision, especially if I thought I could spell it.

As to the cause of my error we will never know, but if I had to guess, I would offer that I knew a "John Fox" once, and apparently managed to run that together with "Tim F. of John Cole's...".

Or maybe Tim F is just sly like a fox.  Or great looking.  Well, at least I don't have any old acquaintances named "John Flop".

Comments

[Forbes]

I know! Let's dismiss the Congress, and merely make it a requirement that all Presidential action be supported by the results of a Times/CBS public opinion poll.

But apparently a majority of Americans support the financing of the war effort, so the Times highlights what 20/20 hindsight tells us.

While banging its spoon on the highchair, the Times wants a do-over. How mature and responsible. It get harder and harder to make fun of the left, these self-parodies do it for you automatically.

[Sara]

Americans are sheep. They follow the mainstream media line lock, stock and barrel and it sucks. See: You're Killing Us!

[Tim F]

Hi Tom, thanks for appreciating my Spakespeare.

One question: when did I become Tim Fox? Folks have called me a fox before but my mother is not one of them.

[Tim F]

On second thought, I most certainly am Tim Fox. Now kiss my pro bowl ring.

[gmax]

Nothing like watching a lefty meltdown on a rainy Thursday afternoon! I love the smell of napalm in the morning, it smells like victory!

And don't ever try to tell me that Balloon whatever site is anything other than a moonbat outpost. If it appears at brief moment's to resemble anything else, remember that is a DougJ hangout. In fact the whole site may be DougJ sockpuppets. Regardless, there aint no Republicans hanging out there, especially not the site owner.

[Tom Maguire]

One question: when did I become Tim Fox? Folks have called me a fox before but my mother is not one of them.

What's in a name? But sorry - I posted a correction.

[Other Tom]

Interesting headline accompanying that poll. It doesn't seem to me that the poll measures "opposition" to the war it all. It seems to say that people wish it hadn't begun, and don't think it's going well. Is that the same thing as opposing it?

[Other Tom]

"...I knew a 'John Fox' once..."

That would be the Carolina Panthers head coach, right? (You got a football Jones working?)

[jimmyk]

Interesting headline accompanying that poll. It doesn't seem to me that the poll measures "opposition" to the war it all. It seems to say that people wish it hadn't begun, and don't think it's going well.

You noticed that too, Other Tom? Not only that, but "the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war." That's real opposition, hm?

[cathyf]

It seems to say that people wish it hadn't begun,

Well, duh. Like what's the last war we actually started? Spanish-American War? And isn't the only other war we ever started the Revolutionary War? (Ok, I suppose since we were on both sides of the Civil War -- that's the definition of "civil" war -- then some of "we" started that one, too.) But notice a theme going there, at least since the end of the nineteenth century: we don't start wars, but we get stuck finishing them. This one is no exception, declared against us by the Mad Mulluhs, drawn in by Saddam's invasion of an ally, declared against us by Osama. Of course we're pissed off that some damnfools have picked a war with us and now we've got to fight back. That's our national lot in life, after all.

[hit and run]

Forbes:
It get harder and harder to make fun of the left, these self-parodies do it for you automatically.

Tell me about it. Gonna put me out of business.

A similar phenomenon is the Jay Leno "man on the street" bit. Forget trying to write jokes about people, just stick a microphone in their face and get them to speak and hilarity will flow like a river.

[hit and run]

More from the harder-to-make-fun-of-the-left-these-self-parodies-do-it-for-you-automatically file...

Taranto points us to this article at politico.com

Some activists had privately feared that Democratic leaders were losing their resolve to stage a protracted fight with the White House over wartime funding. Pelosi had announced earlier that the House would not leave for the Memorial Day recess without a new funding bill, a signal to some of a looming defeat.

"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing."

And in typical fashion, he sums it up succinctly:

This gives away the game, doesn't it? The "antiwar" people understand what it means to set a deadline--and they seek to do so because they want America to lose.