Not Our Pork

Why are congressional Democrats and Democratic analysts letting themselves be blamed for the pork in the Iraq spending bill?

The MSM punditry is spinning itself into a tizzy reminiscent of a bad episode of Crossfire. Republican analysts are complaining about how the Democrats bought themselves a bill, and Democrats are responding that it's not about the pork — it's about setting a real timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Yes, it's about withdrawal. But it's also about pork. The Republican noise machine has made it about pork. And sticking our necks in the sand and refusing to address why the pork is there will not make that issue go away.

So why not hit back with the truth about the bill? It's plain as day, after all. Americans voted overwhelmingly for troop withdrawal in the '06 elections, a point confirmed by every single poll I've seen published since then. Democrats then try to enforce troop withdrawal in the Iraq spending bill. Republicans won't go with it, so Democrats have no choice but to give them concession after concession until enough of them have bought into the bill. It's Republicans that are making the pork necessary, not Democrats. The message here should be, "we had to give Republicans those concessions because they refused to listen to the American people, and we were willing to put the will of the American people and the welfare of our soldiers in harm's way over petty partisan pork bickering." Probably with a bit tacked on about the President's threats of a veto after that: "...and it saddens us that after all our efforts to effect the will of the American people over Republican political games, the President would again choose to ignore the people's clear message. But if he thinks that will deter us, he is mistaken — we as Congress are the voice of the American people, and his refusal to listen to the message we received in the '06 election does not change our responsibility to represent the people's will. The President can threaten to veto this bill, but our message cannot — must not — change. It is the people's message, and no one, not even the President, can impose his will upon that."

I'm not sure if it's because I'm envisioning Clinton's evisceration of the Fox News campaign to blame him for 9/11, or Webb's direct and powerful response to the State of the Union address, or perhaps I'm simply growing increasingly sick of Democrats' automatically assuming fault for everything because they hold a majority (of sorts) in Congress, but it aggravates me to no end that we are trying to pass a bill that represents the will of the vast majority of America against recalcitrant, nonsensical opposition, and yet we still look like the bad guys in the press. How is it possible that the Republican party somehow got their hands on everyone that could craft a half-decent message that would stick on a national level? How can it be that we hold a majority in Congress, have the American people behind us, and still can't be effective enough on the political arena to at very least present ourselves more effectively than a president with a 30% approval rating?

Having newfound power in government makes it an exciting time to be a Democrat — but that doesn't make it any less frustrating.