I feel like that's about the 1000th article I've read detailing the spinelessness of the Democrats. What is really needed is an analysis of the phenomenon. Why AREN'T they more aggressive? As for the 85% of Americans who DON'T feel America is on the right track, that's kind of a bullshit figure without further breakdown, how many want America to get MORE aggressive in Iraq, how many want America to pull out? How many are happy with backing Israel, how many want to cut Israel loose? How many want no change in torture policies, how many want more torture, how many want no torture? How many know who Mukasey is? How many want him? How many don't?
This is the problem with using statistics obtained in polls. What they indicate very much depends on how the questions were presented. I hadn't really thought about it, but you make a great point that "disapproval" of US policy in Iraq might lump together people who have completely different views on what is actually wrong and how to fix it.
If there's all this dissatisfaction among the public, where and how is it being expressed as action? If not expressed as action, why not? And WHY are the Democrats so unaggressive?
Here is one example. Remember when Kerry was accused of flip-flopping on the issue of the war? Well, Kerry was, in fact, a person who tried to appease both sides of the issue, and it was fair to point it out. Folks are doing that to Mitt Romney today. But one thing that was both unfair and deeply foolish was the argument that Kerry voted to authorize the President to use force and then complained about his use thereof.
That's AMBE. Kerry was absolutely right and responsible to vote, as other Dems did, to give the President the appropriate authority to act quickly and decisively in a time of national crisis. In a system of government such as ours, especially given the size of it, waiting to debate all of the finer points of a military decision with the legislature (and possibly resolve any conflicts in the judiciary) is impractical and could be a disaster.
That said, however, giving someone authority does not mean relieving that someone of responsibility for how they use it. If I authorize a baby sitter to appropriately discipline my children as she feels necessary, that does not mean she can beat my kid with a stick. If I authorize my child to use my credit card, that does not mean he can run it up to its limit buying video games. While I disagree with Kerry's opinions about the way Bush used his authority, it is NOT flip-flopping to hold the President accountable for how he used the authority he was given. That's why it is unfair.
Why it is foolish is that this episode can stifle appropriate interaction between the branches. The next time a Congress is in a situation where the President needs authority to act in an emergency, many members are going to be reluctant to grant it. It is bad enough, but inevitable, that granting any such powers comes with a potential for abuse on the part of the executive. It is even worse when there is a (correct) perception that calling the executive on such abuse can come back to haunt you as "flip-flopping" at election time. So Dems who voted, responsibly, to give authority to the President are under the double whammy of looking bad for "backing" him and looking like flip-floppers if they oppose him.
The bottom line is that this dilemma paralyzes the Democrats (at least in the current case). In the future, these situations will be far more fraught with political confusion than they were this time around. Politics SHOULDN'T drive decisions of this sort. National unity in times of emergency should be outside the realm of political partisanship. But you better believe that will not be the case - especially now.
Some Democrats are not taking the actions you think they should because they do not believe them to be the best course of action. As Plane pointed out, they may have a better perspective than you or I have. But some are agonizing over the high political stakes. That's a damn shame. I know that is not how it should be, but "Profiles in Courage" was not written because such courage is common.
