|
I have been thinking about why the Dems would have went with a non-binding resolution. It seems foolish at first because it actually does nothing. But after careful consideration I think the Dems were betting that the Republicans would block it. Now the Dems have an additional playing cards.
First when the 2008 elections come around the senators that voted against this non-binding resolution will have to answer. They will be portrayed as obstructionists by blocking something that matched the will of the people but had no binding effect on what must be done. Being portrayed as an obstructionist doesn't sit well with voters, just look at Tom Daschell.
In addition, the democrats can now take harsher steps to change the war. They can control the funding and the GOP and president will have little recourse. When the next election cycle comes around i'm sure the GOP will be trumpeting that soandso wanted to remove funding from the troops and does not support them but now the democrats have a defense in saying: "we tried working with the GOP to curve the US deaths in Iraq but they were unwilling to work with us forcing us to do what we did". In addition it furthers the impression that the GOP are a rubber stamp for the president.
|