The compromises may cost (Dems) votes among antiwar liberals, but they hope to pick up some (Repubs)

[ProSense]

The compromises may cost Democrats votes among antiwar liberals, but they hope to pick up some Republicans.

Compromise to lose votes in order to possibly pick up votes?

[rodeodance]

1. Donnelly, New Democrats Urge Pelosi to Seek Compromise on Iraq

Pelosi must be worried if she can even keep these MOD. dems!!


Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject Donnelly, New Democrats Urge Pelosi to Seek Compromise on Iraq
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2812985#2812985
2812985, Donnelly, New Democrats Urge Pelosi to Seek Compromise on Iraq
Posted by rodeodance on Wed Apr-18-07 09:51 PM

Source: Bloomberg




Donnelly, New Democrats Urge Pelosi to Seek Compromise on Iraq

William Roberts Wed Apr 18, 12:18 AM ET

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Representative Joe Donnelly (news, bio, voting record), a freshman Democrat from Indiana, voted with his party last month to tie funding for the Iraq war to a timeline for withdrawing troops. Now, with
President George W. Bush vowing to veto the measure, Donnelly is ready to compromise.


The Democratic-controlled Congress and Bush need to ``try to find that middle place, work together, get the troops funded,'' Donnelly, 51, told constituents last week at a town- hall meeting in Logansport, Indiana. If the withdrawal timelines are waived or eliminated, he said, ``so much the better.''

Donnelly, who is among 30 House Democrats elected in districts previously held by Republicans, said Congress must avoid a showdown with the White House that will cut off funding for Iraq. While a majority of Americans now oppose the war, according to polls, the House bill setting a withdrawal date passed the House by a slim 218-212 margin.

Some new Democratic lawmakers, including Donnelly, Nancy Boyda (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas and Nick Lampson, are wary of any timeline plan that could leave them open to charges they are endangering the troops or creating greater chaos in Iraq.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070418/pl_bloomberg/acwt2ljstheu ;_ylt=AlxZgE3QKgNzifI5ccT1Q_PMWM0F

[OHdem10]

5. May pick up some Republican Votes????

From what I can gather, some Republicans may not
be voting or will vote for Dems anyway.

That Supreme Court Decision today will probably
energize some Pro-Lifers. Pro-Lifers only
vote Republican and they will be hell bent on
more Conservative Judges.

In other words this is the lamest exucuse ever.
I am tired of Democrats trying to get Republican
Votes which puts them in position of rarely
voting with our Party. I will not name names
right now.

If they are to compromise tell the DLC to get
a Spine. Give a reasonable and truthful response.
Years ago deals were done, understandings were
made ( whatever you may call it). We are joined
at the hip in the Middle East. It is referred
to as our National Interest in the Middle East.
We will have troops in Iraq for the next 5-7 years.
This does not mean we will be fighting the war
but we will be there. Someone has to be
sure Iran does not gain too much more power
in that region. Remember when Saddam invaded
Kuwait, did no one wonder why with all the
other countries there, they could not have
pushed Saddam back?? ?

The DLC is determined it appears that we lose
the election. What else is news? They are
much happier with a Republican President, I guess.

[Warpy]

2. The DLC strategy in a nutshell

Sell the party base out, sell the country out and hope a few pubbies see the light. It costs them votes every time as people get discouraged and disgusted and stay home.

It hasn't happened yet. It is unlikely to happen now. They are loyal to their party.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[flyarm]

3. BULLSHIT THEY WILL PICK UP REPUGS..REPUGS JUST STAY HOME AND

DON'T VOTE

bullshit..the dems will lose grass roots..net roots and they will lose big time..

fuckkkkkkkkkkk...don't they ever read the damn repug web sites and understand the repugs just hate anything they perceive as liberal???????????

so they will cut off their nose to spite their faces..and in the interim..they will fuck all of us...

yes this is the dlc bullshit!

again!

fuck them!

fly

edit having a real problem posting here at du and pulling up stuff..so if this is tyo ridden sorry ..its not posting right!!

[BulletproofLandshark]

4. The McAuliffe/Carville/HRC triangulation strategy rears its' ugly head once again

The Democratic Party regained both houses of Congress largely because of antiwar sentiment. IMO it's counterproductive to cast aside loyal Democrats to try to curry favor with people that disagree with the progressive message. Hopefully, after the 2008 elections, these sorts of compromises will no longer be necessary.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Making the Repubs "own" the Iraq War...

I heard an interesting theory on TV by a couple of pundits, which was that the Dems in Congress are doing the tricky prospect of making sure that THEY don't take over the Iraq War, which most agree is a failed war. They are trying to walk a tightrope of doing something about the war, while at the same time making sure that the Repubs KEEP the ownership of the Iraq War so that the Dems don't get blamed for its failure in the end.

In other words, if the Dems pulled the troops out...the Repubs would try to convince the public that the reason Iraq failed was what the Dems did.

If the Dems cut the funding, then the Repubs will blame the failed war on the inadequate funding BY THE DEMS.

This theory makes sense to me. If the public ends up blaming the Dems for more of the Iraq War than they are already responsible for, then a Republican is more likely to get elected in '08, and then what chance is there to really end it properly?

It's tricky.