The downside of having a political party that is truly a big tent.

Maybe the reason is that the Senate doesn't want to get embroiled in the same battle two months from now that it just wasted the past two months fighting.

I'm not saying that the issue is unimportant--far from it. But there are other issues too that democratic Senators would like to address as well, I imagine. They derived their political and popular clout from the stand-off with the White House, and the marginal utility of doing it again in July is lower than working in other ways for the American people.

Just a guess here, I admit. (I haven't performed the utility calculations.)

Harry Reid has to think about what language will keep Joe Lieberman's support, and not piss him off enough to bolt. Not a job I'd want, especially when Reid's inclination is to support much stronger accountability.

Here's an idea for Ben: communicate the truth to your constituents and run on that truth.

There is no bill that LIEerman would support other than a total cave to what W wants. Sen. L is not a Democrat any more. There is a better chance at getting Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) than LIEerman.

Nelson doesn’t want to wait till September and see what happens. He wants benchmarks and more now.

The idea of "benchmarks by which to measure the Iraqi government’s progress" would be really good if, like, they actually had a government.

Referring to the article:

any approach that would tie troop funding directly to progress in Iraq for fear of being painted as defunding the troops.

All you have to do is reverse this statement. The only way this makes sense from a political standpoint is if you're already convinced that there won't be any progress. I know it sounds facile, but the only way that benchmarks can be seen as defunding the troops is if you don't think there will be any change in the war. It's a pessimistic standpoint.

IMO, the WaPo "reporting" comes with an agenda:

September Could Be Key Deadline in War
Lawmakers Call for Proof of Progress by Fall

By Jonathan Weisman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 8, 2007; Page A01

Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months....

All 4 of these "reports" originate from Jonathan Weisman... Clearly, he is trying to deliver the same message in all of these articles:

Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; Page A01

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
.......
Weisman had to correct his story, and there is not much left to it, after this correction:
Quote:

Correction to This Article
A May 3 Page One article about negotiations between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war spending bill said the Democrats offered the first 9major concession by dropping their demand that the bill it include a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq. While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals, party leaders did not specifically make that concession during a Wednesday meeting with Bush at the White House.

It was Weisman who brought us Leon Paneta's "cautions" to the dems.... TWICE:

Democrats To Widen Conflict With Bush
Some on Both Sides See Plans as Risky

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 2, 2007; Page A01

...Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular social programs, and to prove they can govern.

"That's where their strength is," Panetta said. "If they go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."....

....and one more time:

Democrats' Momentum Is Stalling
Amid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish

By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 5, 2007; Page A01

....."The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price.".......

J. McCutchen

September? Sounds like a timetable to me. Keep the pressure on. Nelson's in a peculiar position as he is designated point on the effort to get Republican moderates to bolt.

Keep the pressure on. Give them the 2 month short leash and let the Senators squirm

there's no way lieberman will vote for this if it does anything at all to hold the Iraqi government accountable for meeting benchmarks in any way...

Well, it's a different bill being discussed in the NYT story.

But your point is well taken. Although I understand even less Nelson's reluctance. I mean, he's OK with the bill that was passed, but now not this one? Why? Because it holds up funds in July?

It's a bit too nuanced for me. Either your with Bush, or against him.

Passing "benchmarks for the Iraqi government" is a crock of crap. They have no government. They'll never meet benchmarks. All that does is allow more people, both American and Iraqi, to die. 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

Yeah, and of course everyone knows there will be no change. All this talk about September and these bills is political cover.

Come September, we're going to be exactly as we are now. Only with more people dead.

The insurgency can always wait us out. It's their country. 

In the lookinglass world of the GOP, this is where the blackmail begins. "Supporting the troops" means keeping them in the cauldron indefinitely.
Or at least until Bush and Cheney are out. Then it's someone else's problem, and, the way things are going with the GOP's implosion, the Democrats' war to "lose".

Sen. Ben Nelson needs to have the courage of his convictions and not try to hide behind silly bipartisanship.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that an incumbent very conservative Democratic Senator in Nebraska seriously opens himself up politically by passing a bill with either timelines or mandatory benchmarks for the Iraqi government. I doubt Nebraskans are clamoring for the Iraq War to continue indefinitely.

If he can't ably rebut the feeble defunding the troops argument at this point in his career, how did he get elected in the first place?

Surprising (to me), but it's Greg's designation of these Democrats as "moderate" -- he didn't use quotes to distance himself from that description, as I do, or as Oleeb does above.

My question is to Greg: How is it these Democrats are "moderate" and not "right wing" or "conservative" Democrats? Given the Democratic Party's range of voices, certainly this would be a clearer description of these Senators' orientation within the Dems Big Tent, would it not? They may be viewed as "moderate" when considered part of the vast spectrum of American politics (though I suspect that too is arguable) but certainly they're not "moderates" among Democrats. They represent the party's right wing.

I don't intend to be quarrelsome; I'm simply interested in understanding the clarifications.

First of all, Ben Nelson is not a "moderate" Democrat, in any sense of the word. He's a right-wing Democrat, always has been. John Kerry is a "moderate" Democrat; Hillary Clinton is a "moderate" Democrat. Ben Nelson doesn't come any closer than Joe Lieberman to the term "moderate."

Second of all, if right-wing Democrat Ben Nelson wants to vote with Bush and the GOP, he'll have great company in Joe Lieberman, the pseudo-independent "Republican" in the Senate.

Thirdly, the entire bill should be re-sent, in its original form, to the President for re-consideration, as many times as is necessary to convince the White House and the American people to see the truth: Bush is withholding funding for the troops.

No, let's re-phrase that last statement: The entire bill should be re-sent, in its original form, to the President for re-consideration, as many times as is necessary to convince the White House to see what the American people already know: Bush is withholding funding for the troops, aid to Katrina victims, health care funding for Iraq/Afghanistan war veterans, and funding to make the armoured humvees safe so that troops are not trapped inside when they hit an IED, as is now the case.

If Bush doesn't care about funding to fix that flaw, Democrats should make damn sure the American people are aware of it. Ben Nelson can go kiss a goat. He's no "moderate."

Greg, you responded to April 2nd WaPo's Jonathan Weisman's reporting of Leon Paneta's "cautions" to the Dems, according to this
http://mydd.com/story/2007/4/2/111531/1404

...critique of Weisman's slanted (biased ??) reporting, before his next three Page A01 "pieces" with the same unsubstantiated "Dems risk over reaching" theme, were written....so I'm puzzled by your "in fairness to WaPo" post, now.

I can't see why you would make the effort now, after three more Weisman pieces, to post "in fairness to the WaPo".

In fairness to the Wapo got some Dems to feed them the details of the proposal and reported them accurately. Babysteps at being a responsible news outlet should be encouraged. Unless of course you have the money to set up a competing newspaper with instant crediblity in the nation's capital.

I find it utterly incredible, even in this day of sticky sound-bites, that the Dems can't find the language with which to decouple their bill from "unfunding" the troops. That is such a bogus concern, but the Reps have succeeded in selling an image of some poor soldier standing with his pants around his ankles and an empty gun in his hands. It simply isn't accurate. Why doesn't "Dammit, we ARE funding the troops!" carry enough weight to shove aside the false patriotism of the right-wing labels?

oops-responding to the wrong post

I am SO sick of this cowardly political gamesmanship by frightened Dems. "Bipartisan" is code for giving the Republicans their way. Democrats better get a spine soon or I will bolt for a third party, and I don't think I'll be alone.

Sen. Feingold would be a stellar independent candidate. Unfortunately, he is (according to conventional wisdom) "disqualified" for having been divorced the same number of times as Rudy Giuliani.

Hell, get him remarried and cross-dress him a time or two and he can run as a Republican.

No, Poppy and Co. won't come through with cash for Junior's war. Do some arithmetic -- start by looking up the term "trillion" in the dictionary. Besides, spending their own money on wars is not their style.