Talking Tough, but not Delivering.

The Republican blocking of the bill that would have paid for the Iraqi war while requiring the beginning of troop withdrawal poses both promises and perils for Congressional Democrats who have seen their political fortunes plumeting  following their capitulation and surrender on their first war-funding bill since taking control of Congress.

Democrats have promised to revisit the funding issue in January, but factors beyond their control, as well as of their own making have limited their options and undermined their political calculation which had been the driving force behind their capitulation, costing them a political momentum that has to-date continued on a downward spiral. The oncoming funding battle—if it ever came to pass— between them and the White House will take place in the context of what has successfully been peddled by the protagonists of war as a success in Iraq: violence on a downward trend . Violence that had engulfed Iraq on a protracted basis since the the invasion. How the Dems will fare in this battle of wits will define their legislative agenda, as well as determine their  prospects in view of the forthcoming 2008 elections. While they have sounded uncompromising lately, conceivably to pull wool over the eyes of the anti-war voters who propelled Democrats to power in the first place, what passes as a rhetorical toughness on their part could well be a prelude for another surrender.

Democrats May Force a Republican Filibuster On Iraq Withdrawal.

The Democrats reportedly may force Republicans into filibustering a bill requiring troop withdrawal. And if it survived the filibuster, and/or was later vetoed by the president, Democrats would not resubmit it. The strategy Cogressional Democrats are trying to pursue this time around is one they should have adopted in May in the first place, instead of passing the bill for the funding of war without timeline attached. Then the political momentum was favorable to them, and inexplicably they squandered it by shamelessly capitulating to President Bush and passed a bill without timeline as he had demanded. While it is never too late for a man to mend, the situation on the ground in Iraq as of now favors the protagonists of war because violence appears to have somewhat subsided, and could conceivably translate into a plus for the protagonists when it comes to American domestic politics if voilence’s low ebb were sustained much longer.

The chances, then, of whether the the Dems can regain lost strategic initiative are at best contingent upon the turn of events on the ground in Iraq as well as the sustainability of the negativity of the public view of the Iraqi situation. Their failure to act sooner than they have points to a number of flaws on their part, not least their lack of principles and sense of direction. Had this not been the case they would never have capitulated for fear of political consenques should it have come to that. Hence the lesson here for Democrats is that fixation on polls and unprincipled vacillation do not pay. Doing what you belief is right no matter the consequences guarantees public trust.

Democrats May Force a Filibuster On Iraq Withdrawal

 

The Democrats reportedly may force Republicans into filibustering a bill requiring troop withdrawal. And if it survived the filibuster, and/or was later vetoed by the president, Democrats would not resubmit it. The strategy Cogressional Democrats are trying to pursue this time around is one they should have adopted in May in the first place, instead of passing the bill for the funding of war without timeline attached. Then the political momentum was favorable to them, and inexplicably they squandered it by shamelessly capitulating to President Bush and passed a bill without timeline as he had demanded. While it is never too late for a man to mend, the situation on the ground in Iraq as of now favors the protagonists of war because violence appears to have somewhat subsided, and could conceivably translate into a plus for the protagonists when it comes to American domestic politics if voilence’s low ebb were sustained much longer.

The chances, then, of whether the the Dems can regain lost strategic initiative are at best contingent upon the turn of events on the ground in Iraq as well as the sustainability of the negativity of the public view of the Iraqi situation. Their failure to act sooner than they have points to a number of flaws on their part, not least their lack of principles and sense of direction. Had this not been the case they would never have capitulated for fear of political consenques should it have come to that. Hence the lesson here for Democrats is that fixation on polls and unprincipled vacillation do not pay. Doing what you belief is right no matter the consequences guarantees public trust.

In the immediate wake of 9-11, the Bush administration chanelled its efforts—justifiably so—into dismantling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in pursuit of al-Qaeda. Since then, having abandoned  further action against this terror organisation inside Afghanistan itself, as well as in the Afghan- Pakistani- tribal areas, and diverted its attention to the invasion of Iraq, this administration has all but devoted itself to the pursuit of a policy that elevates the primacy of military force and its exclusive utility to the detriment of the prospects of reconciliation and security political and diplomatic efforts might otherwise have conferred on Iraq. Hence with its overwhelming and unmatched destructive power at its disposal, and in a protracted state siege it is generally perceived to have wrought on some segments of the Iragi populace this administration

The Perils of Hillary’s Candidacy.

With each passing day it is increasingly clear that if she won the primaries Hillary Clinton would not be able to stand up against Repuplican attacks. She would simply buckle under pressure if they did’nt accord her  special treatment as a woman, which  raises the question of her endurance  if she won the presidency: would she withstand the pressure of this male-dominated office? The answer to this perhaps is no,  except if  her male counterparts cut her some slack as a woman.  Which amounts to a simple reality of her operating on the basis of lowered expectations if her wishes of being treated as a woman were to be granted.  Which takes us to the general election which is bound to go down in history as one of one bitterest, the nastiest, and the most negative we have  seen in a long time, make no mistake about it. 

The Republicans who are already showing signs of nervousness about the likelihood of Hillary beating them hands-down,  devoid of popularly acceptable ideas ,  and in desperation, are certain to resort to dirty tricks as they customarily always do to ensure whatever it takes that Hillary never wins.  Moreover, other than her high negatives as compounded by her polarizing personality she is going to be unfairly held to account for her husband’s indiscretions while he was in office. They will be recycled  by these “masters of negativism” and dished out to the public, with the hope that they can endure the voters’ skeptism.  Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades thus remain Hillary’s achilles’ heels potentially more devastating than most would acknowledge.

Republicans are going to engage in this “mother of all negativisms” because they have nothing better to offer to the American people. Their ideas are in shambles and increasingly obsolete, and their party in disaray. They will pursue this risky strategy because they view it as the easiest way through which they can avert a nightmare most Republicans are resigned to accept as more likely than ever: the Hillary presidency.

In view of the foregoing, then, it is important to ask: is that kind of negative campaining going to work for Repulicans? It is hard to tell. But there can be no doubt that the voters—while claiming otherwise—are more apt to be more gullible to issues of salacious nature than to ones of esoteric dimension.  And,  as much as public backlash against Republicans remains a likely operative dynamic  accruing from their negative campaigning , it would be foolhardy for the Hillary campaign not to initiate a swift response caliberated to neutralize the attacks.  So that how they deal with these attacks will determine the course of the campaign as well as the eventuality of its strategic endurance.