If a comment goes into moderation, I’ll recover it, usually within the same day.

People are just as likely to draw the lesson that the Democratic national party isn’t capable of serious action, neither to deploy forces nor to take action to require their withdrawal. This is, I think, the correct reading: the party requires support from its base coalition, which is hardwired into the electoral process in the form of gerrymandered Congressional districts. They can’t risk alienating any of their core constituents, and those groups favor different things. (White male union men, for example, are often Vets who worry that withdrawal will make war more rather than less likely in the future; but professors at colleges are more likely to be anti-war by sentiment.)

So, you’re right: unless public sentiment turns so solidly against the war that all their major constituent blocs are satisfied with serious action, there will be none. We have come to the point at which the national Republican party misgoverns, but the national Democratic party can’t govern.

House Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn’t cut off money for U.S. tr

Grim speaks volumes of truth with the above quote. When it comes to elections I feel I have choice between; shooting myself in the head or jumping off a sky-scraper. Either way I loose.

However, to date GOP misgovernment has been cheaper respecting taxes than Democrat inaction. Don’t get excited though because tax cuts don’t mean much to dead men.

:^{)>

On the main point. To re-iterate. Since the “ANYTHING” you want the Dems to do will perforce entail a Constitutional confrontation and politics at the Constitutional level requires (generally) a two-thirds majority, The Dems can do nothing until they get 40% or so of the Repubs on board.

Shrug.

Sucks.

The only thing can really do as the 50% +1 Majority to stick it to Bush is the ‘08 fiscal year. For which they have time.

EVERYTHING you see now from both sides is posturing and angling for position for the showdown.

Overall, I agree. But, as a detail, the Dems could do a lot with 60 votes in the Senate and a 51% majority in the House. If, on that basis, they pushed thru some war-limiting laws, and forced a veto, I’d call that something.

But, overall, you are right; we are in for two years of posturing and angling.

1. Non-operating scold (already occurred);

2. Funding threats, various trial balloons; (happening now);

3. Scandal-ish Iraq hearings (Spring, Summer) on contracting, etc.;

4. More funding threats, minimal funding restrictions (early Fall);

5. A Binding scold attached to F08 appropriations (end of fiscal year; continuing resolution)

6. Real funding restrictions (next Winter)

That’s best case. Move everything back by months if the **** in Congress gets too deep to shovel.

Talk about your buyer’s remorse twice