Columbia University Democrats

For those who claim the Democrats don’t have a plan on Iraq, Senators Obama and Feingold proved today that we’ve got at least two.

Obama today offered a comprehensive bill that would mandate a phased redeployment of our combat troops in Iraq, to begin no later than May 1, 2007 and to end no later than March 31, 2008. Full text isn’t up yet, but Obama’s senate site has a nice summary, including the bill’s aim and proposed benchmarks. The bill also (thankfully) prevents any escalation by capping the number of troops in Iraq and the number there on 1/10/07. My favorite part is something so gosh-darn common sense, it’s almost criminal that it has yet to be enacted as law:

Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government’s progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.

Expect to see more on Obama’s plan as the week unfolds.

Senator Feingold is taking a bit of a different tack, proposing (though not offering) a bill that would end all financing for combat operations in Iraq effective six months after the bill’s passage. I can’t say I’m the biggest fan of this approach; while it certainly forces the President to act, it seems like a bit of a cop out to set a ticking clock and then just walk away. There’s definitely some appeal to telling Bush, “You made the mess, so you clean it up”, but can we really trust the Blunderer-in-chief to put the pieces back together on his own?

Speaker Pelosi, fresh off her trip to the region, chimed in today in favor of a rapid redeployment of US troops in Iraq. While not a plan, per se, this is definitely a promising development.

No matter who comes out on top, one thing is looking increasingly certain – sooner rather than later, our boys are coming home. (And women, of course. But it’s an expression, ok?)

In a bold move, President Bush has given the White House increased control in regulating public health, the environment, civil rights, privacy and safety, the New York Times reported on Monday (Columbia Law School Professor Peter L. Strauss is quoted in the article). The White House would have a political appointee in each agency making sure that the President’s priorities are met.

The move obviously comes as the result of Bush’s loss of power with a new Democratic Congress, and represents Bush’s efforts to regain some of this power. Increases of executive power by such rare means scare us here at The Lion and the Donkey, as they appear to be attempts to circumvent the checks and balances established in the Constitution. In an administration that has already proved that adhering to the Constitution is optional, who knows what could come of this?

The Dems’ own Brittany Brewer got an excellent Op/Ed published in yesterday’s Spec on the numerous failings of Bush’s poorly received (but cheerfully liveblogged) State of the Union. For your convenience and edification, you can find it reprinted below:

The State of the Union address is typically an opportunity for the President to dramatically present the successes of the past year and to gain support for an extensive list of new initiatives for the coming year. In last Tuesday’s speech, President George W. Bush abandoned this tradition and attempted to address several key issues facing the nation. Much to the dismay of the newly elected Democratic Congress, however, the Bush’s solutions were far less constructive and bipartisan than hoped for.

Bush seems to think that it is the government’s responsibility to care for the elderly, disabled, and poor children, while all other Americans are responsible for supporting themselves. Every American should be appalled by a plan that ignores their needs: it penalizes people with high-quality, comprehensive plans, and fails to make health care more affordable for those suffering without. As U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-New York, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee argued, the policy is a bad idea, as it increases middle-class tax liability, a move that will only temporarily and inadequately address the problem.

In his speech, Bush praised the No Child Left Behind Act, a contentious piece of legislation, for its continued success, stating that it “has worked for America’s children” and asked Congress to reauthorize it. While it is no surprise that Bush requested reauthorization for a program he initially proposed and implemented, it does seem outlandish that he obscured the fact that his administration has neglected to adequately fund the program since its inception in 2001.

Democrats were unimpressed by Bush’s proposals for education reform. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, who delivered the Democrats’ response, argued that “college tuition rates are off the charts” and that Bush’s programs will not succeed in resolving these issues if they are not properly funded.

Bush displayed a similar disingenuousness with his economic proposals: balancing the federal budget, reducing earmarks, and reforming entitlements. Bush promised to eliminate the federal deficit, one which he both created and worsened over the course of his tenure, within the next five years. He promised to expose earmarks, yet he has rejected ethics reform so many times that the Democrats made it one of their biggest priorities for the first 100 days. He promised to fix Medicare and Medicaid and save social security, all of which he has attempted and failed to accomplish in the last seven years of his presidency.

In response, Webb observed that “when one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries,” a scrutiny that most Americans can probably identify with after listening to the Bush’s address. There is a divide between the America of workers living from paycheck to paycheck and the America occupied by executives who earn more in one day than many of their employees make in an entire year. Tragically, when Bush discussed the economy, he did not deem this gap worth addressing.

After alluding to the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001 and the tenacity of our enemies, Bush reiterated his plan to send about 20,000 more American troops to Iraq, proclaiming that “to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.” Democrats responded with contempt following his first proposal of the plan and in their response on Tuesday, they stood unified in demanding “an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.” Bush now stands alone in his belief in the potential of additional troops, since even his own generals have advised him that an increase in troops will not help the situation and Republicans continue to desert him on this issue.

Both the victory of the Democrats in 2006 and Tuesday night’s address demonstrate one thing: this nation is ready for a change. Bush’s approval ratings are lower than ever, with only a 28 percent job approval rating in a recent CBS poll. Democrats in Congress must force Bush to respect their demands and to seek bipartisan cooperation. While Bush has acknowledged this challenge verbally, he has done little to execute it. Fortunately, the American people have placed their trust in a party that is demanding change from their president. The Democrats have vowed to join Bush if he responds favorably to their demands. As Webb declared, however, “if he does not, we will be showing him the way.”

The ’08 smear campaign has begun – but not by the candidates themselves. The conservative website Insight has posted a report alleging that Senator Clinton’s team is preparing to attack Senator Obama’s Muslim background, claiming that he spent time in a Muslim seminary in Indonesia as a child. Just one problem…the New York Times reported on Monday that neither the news of the future attack nor the allegation itself is true. Insight’s article names no sources and does not even name the reporter. Hmm…anonymous articles with unidentified sources. We can only imagine what else will follow between now and the election.

One of the more amusing and satisfying parts of the protest on Saturday (by the way, I do not believe the police crowd estimates. I bet there were a little over 100,000 there, but what do I know: I just was in it, that’s all…) was the counter-demonstration on one side of the Capitol. About 15 counter-demonstrators were present as we walked by, holding up signs with rather generic slogans like “Hippies Smell.” However, the funniest part of the counter-demonstration were the posters that had a picture of Saddam Hussein hanging. The caption? Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Sic Semper Tyrannis is the state motto of Virginia, and translates from Latin as “thus always to tyrants.” To history students, though, the phrase is much better known as the words John Wilkes Booth shouted after he assassinated Abraham Lincoln (that first Republican tyrant who tried to, you know, free the slaves). Note to protestors: if you have a catchy Latin phrase, try Googling it first to see its meaning before you slap it on a poster.

In other protest news:
1. About 30 minutes beforehand, a group of anarchists marched past a group of us, going down seventh street. They had their customary black outfits…and a black and pink flag (call the fashion police!). They were led down 7th street, completely away from the White House which they claimed to be going to. It was a rather amusing sight, and I hope they all fell into the Potomac.

2. I would have to echo Bwog’s sentiments: who cares about Jane Fonda? It seems to me that if she hurt the Vietnam anti-war movement with her ditzy dumbness, then she probably isn’t gonna do this anti-war movement any favors.

3. And in parade route news, the original route called for the entire march to make a U-Turn in front of the Supreme Court (behind the Capitol). Not only is it rather silly to expect a whole march to turn around in the middle of the block, but it seems the Judicial Branch

General message to snobbish old protestors who complain about us compared to ’68: if you’re gonna be idiotic enough to not only invite Jane Fonda, but also expect a parade to make a u-turn, then stop organizing these things and let us take over. Young people deserve to have a voice at these events, and instead we got stuck listening to by-gone preachers, insufferable actors, and generally boring speakers. How can you expect a person to express him or herself if you give them no voice to do so?