Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I mean, quite simply, what I said.
I fear that both sides may be formulating policy and taking actions based on considerations of political popularity rather than merit, with possible detrimental effects to the "success" of this important mission (i.e. getting the best possible outcome now).
Or, they all may be acting based on their best judgment, with which I disagree. Hard to tell.
Yes, the issue is critically important to the voters, and the Democrats certainly have to push the issue. I'm not suggesting they are wrong to do so. Both sides have to satisfy the folks who elected them and/or will be voting on them in the future, at least to some extent. (That's why I was hoping our party would have a less complete victory.)
As to tying the President's hands -- some members of the House would love to do that (i.e. prevent a surge and force withdrawal) through the funding mechanism -- but I don't think you can really use that in such a delicate and precise manner. We are far fromt the point where Congress would just cut off funding for the whole operation.
S_A_M
|
What I meant about "expressing" is the Congress is talking a lot but not doing anything to actually constrain the President's freedom to act as he sees fit. And the President certainly doesn't care about what people think, since neither he nor Cheney are running in '08. If anything, we have policy too divorced from politics, not captured by it.
It's a peculiarly Beltwayish view that thinks that too much concern for what voters think will produce bad results, as if politicians can be trusted to formulate policy if they are just left alone to do as they will. Some will. Others will be corrupt, or stupid, or misguided. As in free markets, the accountability drives better results, in general.
