Democrats Offer "Goodies" for "Slow Bleed"

Via email:

Facing what could be unprecedented intra-party rancor over the merits (or lack thereof) of a "slow bleed" strategy to force a premature withdrawal from the Global War on Terror, House Democratic leaders have resorted to achieving consensus the "old-fashioned" way - by paying for it.

As the New York Times reported yesterday, intra-party politics - not principle - is what appears to be driving Democrats on the most important national security challenge of the 21st Century:

"Trying to build backing for the plan, Ms. Pelosi and her fellow leaders are drafting a proposal that can satisfy both moderate Democrats worried about a precipitous withdrawal and party members who want to spend money only on a pull-out."

The Wall Street Journal notes the new Democratic Party strategy to bridge the divide between its liberals and moderates:

"Toward that end, she [Pelosi] and appropriations chief David Obey have already turned to good-old-fashioned bribery. There is talk that the $100 billion "war" supplemental will include an extra $20 billion in goodies."

Sunday's Chicago Tribune highlights the "unseemly" approach to a futile and purely political exercise:

"Democrats, though, have a problem: Some conservatives in their own party are balking at this bill, arguing that it would restrict the U.S. military. And that has House leaders in the unseemly position of trying to buy off Democratic votes by loading up the bill with pork-barrel spending. Even if Democrats can buy off enough of their own members to pass this bill, Bush has signaled that he would veto it."

The Associated Press reports, however, that at least some Democrats will not be bought:

"If this is a sweetener deal, then it makes me real sour on the whole bill," said Representative Lincoln Davis, Democrat of Tennessee.

New York Newsday explains exactly why Democrats should not be "sweetened" into voting for this bill:

"...we don ' t believe the 435 members of the House are capable of making the difficult decisions about how to conduct a war or even addressing the specific question of when the troops should be removed. That is properly a job for the commander in chief and his top military and civilian advisers."

In order to appease their ultra-liberal base, Democratic leaders have tried and failed at least a dozen times to rally support for proposals that hamstring our troops' ability to achieve victory in the war on terror. That ' s not a cause that rallies the American people or a majority in Congress, nor is it a position that should be negotiable in exchange for pork-barrel spending.

There is only one way to do the right thing, and the Democrats haven ' t tried it yet - support the American troops and their new plan for victory with complete and unqualified funding from Congress. Republicans stand united for a troop funding bill that does just that.

It's business as usual for House Democrats...here they are porking the vote... There is no way this thing passes a veto check...