WILL EMANUEL AND HOYER BE ABLE TO KEEP CONGRESS FROM ENDING THE WAR?

Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer supported Bush's war on and occupation of Iraq. More recently, the two of them fought viciously behind the scenes to prevent overtly antiwar Democrats from winning primaries last year, thwarting  party rules to funnel cash and support to Republican-lite, make-no-waves, corporate-oriented  candidates. Although the far more progressive, far less inclined-to-back-Bush Nancy Pelosi is top dog of the Democratic caucus on paper-- and she is the Speaker of the House-- Emanuel and Hoyer have run circles around her at every opportunity. The irony-- and tragedy-- for grassroots activists who spent 2006 working to defeat Republicans inorder to end the war and end the culture of corruption, is that we now have a Congress led by two slimy K-Street operators who will never allow Congress to take any real action to end the war and who are exactly as committed to systemic Inside-the-Beltway corruption as were Hastert and DeLay.

Yesterday's McClatchy papers voiced a sentiment I hear everyday at DWT: if the Democrats control Congress, why can't they end the war? Remember, a majority of Democratic senators voted for Bush's attack on Iraq. But a majority of Democratic representatives, led by rebellious party whip Nancy Pelosi, voted against Bush and against the Beltway Establishment hack/Bush collaborator Democratic Leader, Dick Gephardt, to oppose the war.

When Pelosi tried to help anti-war advocate Jack Murtha get elected Majority Leader over the slightly more politically progressive but far more pro-Iraq War Hoyer, I was shocked that so many "good liberals" endorsed Hoyer (Emanuel's sockpuppet). Closer inspection shows that many of the liberals who supported Hoyer-- a real Establishment type-- were Democrats who voted with the Republicans to authorize the war.

After deftly taking credit with a lazy and insipid mass media for the grassroots victories in November-- victories that were not won by Emanuel but in spite of him-- Rahm was in a position to demand a role in the leadership. He wanted the #3 spot but that was already promised to James Clyburn, an African-American. Rahm was talked down from that demand on the grounds that it would hurt his career to cheat an African-American out of the position. So Emanuel grabbed the #4 slot, Caucus Chair, and uses it as though he were in charge of the whole shebang.

Because of his total sway when it comes to House Democratic communications to the mass media, policy statements always seem to come from Emanuel and Hoyer. Clyburn, Policy Chair George Miller and Steering Chair Rosa Delauro-- and even Pelosi-- all seem tangential to the Emanuel/Hoyer machine. When it comes to Iraq, this is playing out in a very, very bad way. And Democrats outside of Washington are starting to sense something is wrong, terribly wrong.

In Washington, Democrats are blaming Republicans for the Senate's failure so far to vote on a resolution opposing a troop increase in Iraq.

But in the heartland, some voters say such excuses no longer are good enough.

Having banked on the promise that Democrats would force a change of course in Iraq if they won control of Congress, some of the people who helped the Democrats get there are growing impatient.

They're frustrated that Democrats sank so much energy into a nonbinding resolution then dropped the bipartisan plan of Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., like a hot potato when Republican leaders who support President Bush maneuvered them into a corner.

All the finagling has gotten in the way of a formal debate or vote in the Senate on Bush's plans for Iraq...

"The people spoke pretty clearly in November, and nothing's happened," said Bill Fahrenwald, a marketer from Blue Island, Ill., a Chicago suburb. "It's pretty discouraging."

"They're being overly cautious, to the point of really not accomplishing anything," said Lisa Rone, a psychiatrist from Oak Park, Ill. "I thought the Democrats would be much more clear about that vote and be much more active."

Wait 'til they figure out that Emanuel and Hoyer are refusing to allow anything more than a symbolic, nonbinding, absurd resolution get to the floor. The House isn't debating bills by Woolsey, Meehan, Murtha, Sestak, Kucinich or any number of antiwar Democrats. They're going to be debating a silly and irrelevent resolution basically thought up by a pack of cowards who want to appear to be opposing the war without actually doing anything about stopping it.

Emanuel and Hoyer want to make cheap partisan points against the Republicans by forcing a vote, but on a meaningless "symbolic" resolution-- but they will never allow anything to actually jeopardize the war itself. Emanuel and Hoyer are Inside-the-Beltway elitists and hacks-- not difefrent from Republicans in this way-- who believe they are above the people they are supposed to represent. It matters to them not at all-- like Bush and Cheney and McConnell-- that the American people want this war to end.