I can't say this is a surprise:
Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war...
First-term Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) - echoing a view shared by many of her colleagues - said illegal immigration and economic unease have trumped the Iraq war as the top-ranking concerns of her constituents.
Here's the key quote -- which tells you how far off the deep end Democrats have gone on Iraq:
Cooper, who represents a moderate Nashville-area district, said Democrats should "we shouldn't be against good news" [sic] in Iraq.
Cooper is one of the saner of the House Democrats. His comment calls to mind Congressman Jim Clyburn's acknowledgment earlier that good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats.
The huge fall in Iraq as a priority for voters was made clear in the Pew poll released earlier this week. Simply put, as the news from Iraq gets better, voters are turning to more pressing issues. Given that the voters seem largely satisfied with the Iraq drawdown plan proposed by the Pentagon, it's unlikely that Iraq will be a cutting issue for Democrats in the 2008 election -- unless things there turn markedly worse.
This is why it's almost certain that Democrats will cave on the current Iraq funding fight. While they bravely claim they won't provide any more money before Christmas, Democratic leaders are signaling compromise. Even John Murtha is eating crow and outlining a possible deal:
Democratic Representative John Murtha said he is "optimistic'' that House Democrats and President George W. Bush can agree on Iraq war funding after an earlier $50 billion proposal linked to troop withdrawals was blocked in the Senate.
"Congress wants to come up with an agreement,'' Murtha, chairman of a House subcommittee on military spending, told reporters in a video conference from his office in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. "Leadership may be willing to compromise'' on the time line for withdrawing troops from Iraq, he said...
Murtha said that because of the number of troops in Iraq and the amount of support equipment in the country, a full withdrawal could take as long as two years. Still, Congress should press for troop withdrawal dates to put pressure on the Iraqi government and limit the American commitment, he said.
Murtha is hoping that the White House will bite: Iraq funding with a two-year goal for troop withdrawal. He recognizes that Democrats risk a huge black eye if the Pentagon begins furloughing civilians, or if American troops suffer, because of the disagreement between Congress and the White House over funding for the war on terror. Will the public get angry when furlough notices are sent out, or will they be patient until the furloughs actually begin? Whom will they blame?
And more importantly for Congressional Democrats, why take the risk? They contend that they've made it possible for DoD to jump through hoops to fund the war through February, at least. They say that Secretary Gates and the Pentagon are being disingenuous when they claim they're being forced to lay off civilians. But if their goal was to fund the war, why not actually fund it?
If the current situation in Iraq holds or improves, the Iraq war may come to resemble the Gulf War--an issue that seemed all-encompassing in the year before the presidential election, only to disappear during the campaign. George H. W. Bush was unprepared for the dramatic shift in terrain, and suffered politically. Will Congressional Democrats make the same mistake in 2008?
