My Take on the Kerry/Levin Resolutions Today

It's really been troubling me, as it is so many other DUers, that our Democratic leaders couldn't find a way to get behind Kerry's resolution, the one calling for a redeployment of troops by July 2007. They had two resolutions, one binding and one not binding, and two separate votes - most backing Levin.

Now, a lot of us are seeing this as a split within the party, which is exactly what the MSM is saying. Democrats can't all decide on the same plan. The media even reported that "some Dems" were irritated by Kerry doing his own thing, but I never actually heard that first-hand from any of them.

So I've decided to spin this whole situation around and look at if from another angle; look at it a little closer. I didn't see any animosity or jostling for position between Kerry and Levin. I didn't hear much out from the supporters of each resolution. What I did hear was a lot of debate about the mess in Iraq and a chance for it to be front and center on the Senate floor for a few days. That alone is an accomplishment. Then, I got a letter from John Kerry a little while ago, thanking me for my support and thanking the other Senators who stood with him without a peep about the others who did not.

We had two resolutions today, one offering a definite date for redeployment, and one that did not. We gave the Republicans two different options and they chose neither. They chose to continue on the path that isn't working. The Democrats can use this - they can use the fact that neither resolution was good enough for the Republicans. And by having two different resolutions, it's more difficult for Rove and Co. to give all Democrats the same label.

I am not distressed by what occurred today. If it pans out, could very well be a great strategy.

that line was drawn pretty clearly. . .Repugs look like selfish shortsighted fools.

So maybe Kerry's resolution was too much for them with a date and all. But Levin's was reasonable, wasn't it? They could have at least picked that one. ;-)

The painful reality of the burden of costs in money and men in the face of no improvement in the situation has to start taking a toll. I don't care how many proclamations they make about this thing, it won't make it work.

DID have an opportunity to debate Iraq on the senate floor in a way they haven't been able to in 3 years.

So, maybe there was a method to it all that actually solidified for the public that Dems were at least for some way out of Iraq with honor while they cemented the Republicans in their support of the very unpopular Bush position.

"Republican Senators closed ranks today behind President Bush's management of the Iraq war"

That, I believe, is a death-knell, since the majority of Americans favor some sort of timeline.

I really think that what happened today was a good thing. :hi:

The Democrats have two options for getting out of Iraq, both beginning with redeployment and Iraqi's taking over their own security. That's the bottom line.

I've never heard Kerry criticize another Dem, by the way, it's one of the things I admire about him.

They've sealed their fate with Bush. And no, Kerry would not criticize another Dem, I admire that about him too. It just seemed to me, after watching CSPAN for two days, that our Democrats, even though divided, were working together.

I do think they did a much better job of advocating their positions without destroying each other. A lot can be learned from that. Now if they could just stuff a sock in Lieberman's mouth.

We don't need to panic; I think the Dems know what they're doing. This was a net loss for the GOP--they have lashed themselves to the sinking ship which is the Iraq occupation. Haha--they don't expect the Dems to set traps, do they--they think they are the only ones smart enough to try it! And now they are on record. All except Chaffee--I think he's the only one who voted from their side for either amendment.

they did not want to assist him in his run for the Presidency because they want to run themselves, namely Biden, Bayh, Clinton, perhaps Obama, and others... They voted against Kerry.

But I fear you are at least partially right.

It is beyond sad that anyone would sacrifice our troops and our national security for political posturing. Kerry/Feingold never would have passed - but more votes for it would have sent a stronger statement. I am happy we got 13 though - big improvement over 6.

I wonder how much money she has gotten from companies that make military equipment?? She is part of the problem.

And Obama - that DLC coward.

and would only HURT him politically, but he's always done the unpopular despite the risk.

35 years of being a target kinda makes one hardened against the slings and arrows.

that Democrats will never all be on one page because they, like most of the American people, are not Authoritarians. This is one of the most important reasons I am a Democrat.

It is the Republicans who have the strong Authoritarian proclivities. They take orders from their "leaders." And, as we have witnessed, those "leaders" sure like to give orders.

Democrats have some variations in opinion, and this is a good thing. It's healthy. It's the way it should be.

Good public policy and hence good government arise out of consensus of opinion with everyone being able to have their say before the final decision is made. There is nothing at all wrong with having more then one proposal from the Democrats. The proposals have more in common than not and both are distinct from the Republicans who propose nothing at all except taking orders from the complete and utter failure that is BushCo.

These pundits must not remember anything from junior high Civics. It has been the American way for over 225 years to make policy by consensus. That means not everyone, including those in a party, is exactly on the same page at the outset. They aren't required to be, and they shouldn't be expected to be by these pundits who are just spewing Repub talking points, which are essentially the Dems aren't heel-clickers and saluters like we are, bash them for us, sieg heil.

And I agree completely that the two resolutions have more in common than what the Republicans offer (nothing). :thumbsup:

creative thinking about HOW to get out of this mess. This is a good start. I want to see plans worked out which are even more concrete and detailed. If US presence is only inflaming the situation then what the heck are we doing there? The lack of a clear definition for our purpose there is becoming ever more apparent.

And it forced Republicans to take a side - the side of stagnation and lack of direction. :hi:

tune of "The Dem's don't have a plan". Well we do, two decent ones, that take us forward and will ultimately make us stronger and more adapt at fighting the war on terror. One, cautious one that is a beginning and one that will ultimately be more well received in time. We are moving forward and the Repubs chose to remain stagnant.

If when it becomes politically advantageous for Repugs to have a timeline (and it will) - what about today? They'll be flip-floppers, they'll have to explain why they're on record opposing two reasonable plans for withdrawal.

Democratic party cannot agree on one plan just feeds into the right wing propaganda machine and gives them a mantra like the "I voted for it before I voted against it" line they so effectively used against Kerry. It is really disapointing that when things start to favor our party our elected leaders in DC find a way to muck it up.