Why are the Democrat's committing political suicide? Or are Republicans jumping off the same cliff, taking the nation with them?

Tim Grieve -- in grief mode today -- watches the Democrats lose their footing, apparently deliberately, at the edge of the cliff.

How is it possible that Democrats actually lost ground?  Here's how.

Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dick Durbin and independent Bernie Sanders, all of whom voted for the measure in July, didn't vote today. That takes support down from 52 votes to 49 votes.

Democrat Tim Johnson, who didn't vote in July, voted yes today. That takes support back up to 50 votes.

Democrat Harry Reid, who voted no in July, voted yes today. That takes support up to 51 votes.

Democrats Chris Dodd, Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor and Republican Susan Collins, all of whom voted yes in July, voted no today. And with that, the 52-47 vote found its way back down to 47-47.

Dodd explained his vote by saying that he'll vote yes only on measures that would "fully fund the complete redeployment of our troops out of Iraq." We haven't heard explanations from Nelson, Pryor or Collins yet, but somehow we're doubting that they're quite so unequivocal.

A New York Times lead editorial writer has this take:  there is a universal ducking of responsibility, starting with the president and reaching right down through Congress.

The current Republican leadership, now in the minority, has organized its entire agenda around the filibuster. In July, the McClatchy newspaper group reported that Republicans were using the threat of filibuster more than at any other time in the nation’s history.

Remember, this is the same batch of Republican senators who denounced Democrats as obstructionist and even un-American and threatened to change the Senate’s rules when Democrats threatened filibusters in 2005 over a few badly chosen judicial nominees. Now Republicans are using it to prevent consideration of an entire war.

If anything was clear from General Petraeus’s testimony and the president’s prime-time speech, it was that Mr. Bush has no idea how to end the war in a way that salvages as much as possible of America’s treasury, blood and global image while limiting the chaos that would follow any withdrawal, whether it comes quickly or slowly. Mr. Bush’s only idea is to keep the war going until he leaves office, and that means that other co-equal branch of government, the Congress, will have to lead the way out.

Democrats and Republicans who oppose the war have a duty to outline alternatives. Those who call for staying in Iraq have a duty to explain what victory means and how they plan to achieve it. Both sides are shirking an obligation to deal with issues that must be resolved right now, like the crisis involving asylum for Iraqis who helped the American occupation.

Congress is the first place for this kind of work. Right now, it seems like the last place it will happen.

Or is the whole debacle the result of parliamentary procedures?  On NPR's Diane Rehm show this morning, a listener submitted a straight question about this to moderator Rehm and her three guests, Byron York of National Review, John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal, and Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune.  Here's a clip:

Listener:  Can someone explain to me why a simple majority of the Senate cannot get anything done anymore?  I understand that a filibuster is the threat used, but so what? For example, on the Webb proposal yesterday, why didn't the Democratic majority force the Republican minority to actually follow through on their threat and actually filibuster?  And then wait them out until the filibuster inevitably wilts?  I can't imagine 56 Republicans would be as hamstrung by 44 dissenting Democrats if the roles were reversed.  This is extremely frustrating and obnoxious to the vast majority who are tired of this war.

Byron York:  Well, actually Republicans were hamstrung by Democrats filibustering over the fights in 2001,2, and 3 over the president's judicial nominees.  Republicans argued -- and I think they were correct -- that kind of filibustering had not been used with appointments as opposed to legislation.  I think Democrats were filibustering about a dozen of the president's appeals court nominees.  It came to a fight in which Republicans were threatening to use a kind of questionable parliamentary tactic to break through these filibusters for nominees.  It was only then there was a compromise.  At that point there were threats of nuclear war inside the Senate.  So the filibuster inside the Senate...

Diane Rehm:  But why didn't the Democrats simply allow the Republicans to go ahead and do that?

Clarence Page:  It's a little more risky than what Jimmy Stewart portrayed in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."  This type of maneuver can backfire and that's what they were concerned about.

Diane Rehm:  Backfire how?

Clarence Page:  Well, backfire in terms of their being viewed as obstructionist...

Diane Rehm:  But how can they be viewed as obstructionist?  You're talking about Republicans being viewed as...

Clarence Page:  Well, the Democrats are concerned about appeasing their base while at the same time reaching out to moderates out there.  I think they're hamstrung by their own blue dogs, the moderate Democrats who don't want to appear to be too antiwar at this point. 

John Harwood:  But I think also they don't have the votes.  So you can drag it out.  And you can prove in a slower fashion that you don't have the votes.  But look at the size of their majority. 

Diane Rehm:   Very slim.

John Harwood:  So they simply don't have the strength to do it.  I think what we're seeing -- and Byron talked about the escalating use of the filibuster -- are the tools which have always existed in the Constitution being adapted for use in a completely polarized political environment.  They weren't used so often in the past because the parties weren't so ideologically coherent and polarized in the past.  Now they are. Each side views every controversial issue as really a death struggle.  They're going to use the tools of the Constitution to the maximum extent possible.  We're proving over and over and over again that the Senate can't do anything without a very large majority.

In the end, the ball comes bouncing back into our court looking something like a grenade.  Unless Democratic voters become much more motivated, think much more clearly, and work a lot harder, we're not going to get our way.  When we blame Congress, we're really blaming ourselves.

Comments

[siri]

HOW ABOUT IF EVERYONE STOPS CALLING IT "TREASURE AND BLOOD"
and start calling it "American Lives and MONEY!?!
Let the end of "double speak" type phraseology begin with US!
siri@legitgov.org