'Majority In Name Only' Dems Cave on Spending Bill to Loathed GOP

CNN's story about the National Democratic Party Cave-In contains this little window into the logic of these cowards "leaders" as they try to explain that they didn't completely capitulate in every single way possible -- it is one of the most pity-inducing passages I've read:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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. 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.

Still, Democrats are trying to sell $70 billion in new war funding as a partial victory for them. They point out that while the final numbers are still in flux during intense private negotiations, Bush is likely to get far less money than he originally requested.

"What is for sure is he will not get all $200 billion," said one senior Democratic lawmaker. "Whatever number it is, it is much less than what the president asked for. For the first time in this war, he has received less than his request."

But senior administration officials privately say they expect to be able to get at least of the rest of the president's $200 billion request passed through Congress next year.

The silver lining to the cave-in is that they are only giving Bush $70 billion for the war now, and they won't give him the other $130 billion he wants for three whole weeks. They really showed him.

More pain from The Politico:

But it's a simple truth, whether you support the war or not: There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and through planned vacations.(…)

Democrats, in on-the-record and on-background interviews, said they do not do these things because they would be bad politics. Democrats in the House and Senate would splinter over such extremist measures.

In closed-door caucus meetings, members say, Democratic leaders like Reps. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) have carried the day by warning that there is no appetite for such tactics in the districts of vulnerable Democrats, upon whom the party's new majority status depends.

We need to give up the country to save our DINOs in Indiana?

RedState's crazies know the deal:

There is no Democratic Party in Congress. There are, instead, a bare majority of Congressmen and Senators who have banded together in order to gather power, influence, and money. Which is fine, as far as it goes -- except that they are not actually using any of the resources that they are gathering to benefit the groups and causes who worked to put them in power.

The headline of the post from the above? "Sweet Jeebus, is there nobody in the Democratic Party who understands national party unity?"

No. There isn't. Harry Reid deserves to lose his Senate seat and his leadership position.

Bush vetoed SCHIP again. May hay, you idiots!

Here's a freebie, "When Bush came up with 'No Child Left Behind' I didn't think he meant that when he got done, there would be no children left."

Why can't you take advantage of any situation?! Any single one!