Fire Up Your Favorite Capitulation Carol

After all, it's Christmas, let's give George Bush a present. Actually, a multitude of presents:

Democratic lawmakers and staffers privately say they're closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.

Congress is likely to pass an additional $70 billion in new war funds, Democrats tell CNN.

The deal would lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.

Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership's failure to push back on Bush's Iraq policy.

"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.

If there's one thing I know about creating a winning majority in politics, rule number one is, displease the base.

Right?

By the way, in exchange for this abomination, they'll be getting a reduction in their budget by $22 billion dollars. David Obey tried to play hardball by threatening to dump every earmarks, but bring-home-the-bacon Democrats revolted.

And this comes on a day when the President vetoed S-CHIP, again. Somehow these are seen as two completely separate events. Somehow nothing is connected between one and the other. Somehow Democrats who feel stymied and bullied into giving war funding don't have the light bulb go off and say, "OK, sign S-CHIP then." Nope, it's always framed by how constrained they are.

Privately, Democrats say they have little choice but to give the president at least some war funding because Senate Republicans have vowed to block any final budget deal unless it has at least some of the war funding Bush has requested.

Oh noes! They're going to block any budget deal! OK, no war funding then. That's called hardball, but Democrats play with only a badminton shuttlecock.

This story about the power of Senate Republicans is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen in my whole life. It's good that the NYT recognizes the historic obstructionism, but that power has to be given to the minority; they can't just take it. And the Democratic leadership gives and gives and gives, taking next to nothing.

So it was more than a little telling when Mr. (Mitch) McConnell laid down his mark in the current budget fight on Tuesday, informing the Capitol Hill press corps that he was ready to offer Democrats a deal, $70 billion in war financing with no strings attached and a total budget identical to President Bush’s proposal.

In other words, the Republicans should get virtually everything they want. And he was not kidding.

Why would he be? Nobody's standing up to him, just like nobody's standing up to Bush. And this is fast becoming an electoral problem.

Chris Bowers thinks it's time for new leadership in Congress, and he's right.

From what I understand, Pelosi is backing down because Reid wouldn't go along with Obey's plan to stand firm. In the Senate, I think Chris Dodd is the obvious choice to replace Reid, given that Dodd has demonstrated leadership and once lost a majority leader campaign by a single vote. Then again, I have no idea how to help engineer a replacement of Congressional leadership. I also don't know who would do a better job in the House than Pelosi.

If the leadership we have isn't getting the job done, we need to think about how to get better leadership. Perhaps we could even change leadership behavior without actually replacing the leaders. I don't really know, but I do know that what we are doing right now isn't working.

I mean, if you can't slap down a little pest like Tom Coburn, who's blocked 90 spending bills this year, it's time for a change at the top.

The Republicans have a strategy to shut down the government. To end all governmental actions except funding endless war. Democrats have recognized this strategy. Every so often they manage to sneak something by it (vets funding, student loans, 9/11 Commission recommendations, minimum wage). But on the major issues of the day, they have willingly, almost, ceded their power in the worst possible way, the only way that threatens expanded majorities and the Presidency in 2008. I've probably been one of the bigger defenders of Congressional Democrats in the blogosphere but I can't defend them any longer.

The expectations for this Congress may have been too high. But they managed to sink far below even the most pessimistic of hopes. They aren't worthy of staying in their leadership positions. They aren't worth much of anything right now.

UPDATE: Hey, here's some fun, the Democrats in disarray headlines are back!

Democrats Blaming Each Other For Failures

Can't argue with that. Not one bit. It's ugly. The House Dems are claiming that the Senate Dems have Stockholm syndrome, the Senate Dems are claiming that the House is passing legislation that can never get through their chamber. It's a HUGE clusterfuck.