WHY DON'T THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS JUST END THE WAR? THEYRE THE MAJORITY, RIGHT?

Why can't the Democrats just vote to end the war? They have a majority now, right? Leaving aside the meaning of a narrow majority and what it takes to override a veto, let's look at the Democrats' big tent in regard to the war. It includes people like Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd on the one hand and other Democrat who are coming from an entirely different perspective. As Reid and Durbin look for the votes needed to pass even a modest bill that would ease us out of war next year-- a bill that is giving anti-war advocates fits-- he might have more luck with wavering Republicans like Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Susan Collins (R-ME) than with red state reactionary Democrats like Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mark Pryor (D-AR).

Reid's office says the vote will be "very close." Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a hard right fanatic and warmonger, said early vote counts by Minority Whip Lott had made Republicans "fairly confident" of being able to strip the language calling for withdrawal from the $121 billion-plus defense spending package.

Over the weekend Hagel-- who voted to stay the course previously-- seemed to say he's finally finished with the rubber stamp two-step he's been doing. It could be hot air-- since the senator seems confused and perpetually on the brink-- but he did say that he "will not continue supporting with my vote the status quo." That would be a first.

Pryor, who's voted with the Republicans on this in the past-- and who is up for re-election next year and apparently can't read polls that show his constituents are not satisfied with the status quo-- seems to be leaning towards supporting McConnell's position-- "stay the course"-- again. Yesterday he offered an amendment that would require the development of a classified campaign plan spelling out "strategic and operational benchmarks and redeployment dates of United States troops from Iraq as those benchmarks are met."

Ben Nelson is an even tougher nut to crack. He won't be facing the voters again for 5 years but he's a reactionary through and through and he votes more frequently with the GOP on substantive matters than he does with Democrats. To try to win over Pryor and Nelson Democrats have reworded the language to make the Aug. 31 deadline for withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq a "goal." Soon the bill will be so meaningless that Cheney would be able to vote for it.

And while the Democratic Senate majority we elected last November-- including Ben Nelson (just look at that Republican voting record)-- proves itself incapable of carrying out the popular will of the people, not just of Democrats, the base of who votes for them, but of all the people, we get an ill-times fundraising letter from the DSCC today. Did you see it?


It's called the "Nightmare Scenario." Before I opened it I wondered if it was going to be a reference to Joe Lieberman, the reactionary Bush die-hard who the DSCC conspired to re-elect last year over the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont. No, rather than look inward at their own failings they want to blame us for the precarious situation they find themselves in now. That and ask for more money.

One seat. That's all it would take to flip Senate control back to the GOP in 2008.
And once again, Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe - who has called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the America people -" would assume the chairmanship of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
That would only be the tip of the iceberg. The very same Republicans who rubber-stamped George Bush's abuses of presidential power, who allowed military contractors to swindle American taxpayers and who looked the other way as Donald Rumsfeld's disastrous Iraq war plan unfolded would retake the reins of crucial Senate committees handling Intelligence, Armed Services and Energy.
We can't let it happen. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has one mission and one mission only: to preserve and expand the Democratic Senate majority.
We're closing out our crucial first quarter of the 2008 election cycle and absolutely must get off to a strong start. This early fundraising will help us recruit the very best candidates and serve as a barometer for the talking heads to judge our early momentum.
To reach our ambitious target, we need $300,000 by midnight March 31. Our Democratic Senators know how vital this goal is and that is why they will match every single dollar you give. Can I count on you?

Count on me? To help prop up and re-elect someone like Ben Nelson? Oh, that was last year. How about Mark Pryor? If I donate to the DSCC will my money go to re-elect Mark Pryor so he can vote to extend the war in Iraq forever?

DSCC, you can count on me. You can count on me to say "Screw you, asshole!" You can count on me to contribute to any progressive Democrat who challenges any reactionary incumbent. This year the DSCC's biggest and costliest battle will be to hold on to the seat of unpopular reactionary senator Mary Landrieu whose voting record sucks-- unless you love corporate subsidies and hate the environment and think working men and women should have limited rights. And if you're with Bush on Iraq... she's your gal. DSCC, you can count on me to support-- directly-- any progressive Democrat who supports the principles and the values of the Democratic Party and who doesn't undermine them. I do it here.