2008 Woodie Awards
The Spineless Democratic majority
Jonathan Terbush
Issue date: 2/1/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
What's the point of the new Democratic majority if everything is going to stay the same?
A recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that almost 70 percent of Americans are opposed to President Bush's proposed troop increase in Iraq.
Considering the American electorate also just voted Democrats back into power amidst promises of reform and a new direction for the country, it would seem logical that Congress would take steps to end our engagement in Iraq.
At the very least, one would expect the new Congress to do everything in its power to thwart the president's plan. However, this is not the case.
Instead, Democratic Senators Joseph Biden and Carl Levin, as well as Republican Chuck Hagel, introduced a non-binding resolution to the Senate for members to vote on whether or not the troop increase is in the "national interest."
The resolution passed 12-9, with Hagel as the only Republican voting in favor.
Such a measure is nothing more than political grandstanding and a waste of time at a crucial crossroad. It does nothing to curtail the unprecedented power of the president, nor does it diminish our involvement in Iraq.
It is simply a measure of calculated political logistics, a move to place members of Congress on record about their support of or opposition to the president's proposal.
Proponents of the resolution claim that it will irrefutably show the president that his support has run out in Congress and that he must now heed their interests rather than continue to pursue his agenda.
The proponents hope to use this as a way to pressure the president to listen to members of Congress and to consider any alternatives they present.
Yet if our representatives should have learned anything from Bush's first six years in office, it is that he disregards any outside opinions that differ from his own.
He ignored popular opinion in the UN by going to war, has constantly bucked fellow republicans in Congress over issues from wiretapping to his desire to redefine the Geneva Convention, and, most recently, he ignored the findings of the Iraq Study Group Report.
A recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that almost 70 percent of Americans are opposed to President Bush's proposed troop increase in Iraq.
Considering the American electorate also just voted Democrats back into power amidst promises of reform and a new direction for the country, it would seem logical that Congress would take steps to end our engagement in Iraq.
At the very least, one would expect the new Congress to do everything in its power to thwart the president's plan. However, this is not the case.
Instead, Democratic Senators Joseph Biden and Carl Levin, as well as Republican Chuck Hagel, introduced a non-binding resolution to the Senate for members to vote on whether or not the troop increase is in the "national interest."
The resolution passed 12-9, with Hagel as the only Republican voting in favor.
Such a measure is nothing more than political grandstanding and a waste of time at a crucial crossroad. It does nothing to curtail the unprecedented power of the president, nor does it diminish our involvement in Iraq.
It is simply a measure of calculated political logistics, a move to place members of Congress on record about their support of or opposition to the president's proposal.
Proponents of the resolution claim that it will irrefutably show the president that his support has run out in Congress and that he must now heed their interests rather than continue to pursue his agenda.
The proponents hope to use this as a way to pressure the president to listen to members of Congress and to consider any alternatives they present.
Yet if our representatives should have learned anything from Bush's first six years in office, it is that he disregards any outside opinions that differ from his own.
He ignored popular opinion in the UN by going to war, has constantly bucked fellow republicans in Congress over issues from wiretapping to his desire to redefine the Geneva Convention, and, most recently, he ignored the findings of the Iraq Study Group Report.
Be the first to comment on this story