To defund or not to defund?

Greenwald makes the point, very convincingly, that defunding the war isn't the same thing as "abandoning the troops." Of course he's right, but sometimes it doesn't matter if you're right -- it matters if most people think you're right (see Jonathan Alter's excellent column).

This situation reminds me of the McCarthy crisis, as recounted in the third Robert Caro book on LBJ, Master of the Senate. Johnson was the most powerful Senate Majority Leader in the Senate's history, yet remained silent while McCarthyism ran amok. Throughout the crisis, LBJ was under a great deal of pressure from his left flank to stop McCarthy, but Johnson was just waiting for the right moment to strike. Writes Caro,

When (Sen.) Bill White said that McCarthy was "destroying civil liberties in this country," Johnson replied, "Bill, that's a good point, but let me explain something to you. If I commit the Democratic Party to the destruction of McCarthy...first of all, all in the present atmosphere of the Senate, we will all lose and he will win. Then he'll be more powerful than ever. At this juncture I'm not about to commit the Democratic Party to a high school debate on the subject, 'Resolved, that Communism is good for the United States,' with my party taking the affirmative side."...Johnson kept saying to people who were impatient, 'Now just wait a minute. The time will come, and when we've got enough votes to be sure we'll win, we'll move.'"

Say what you want about Johnson and Vietnam, but he was a true political genius. The public's attitude about the war isn't entirely rational, and Reid knows that if the Democrats defund now, the issue will be, "Resolved, America has lost the war," with the Democrats taking the affirmative side.

As I wrote earlier, I don't think the Democrats lost. They played the hand they had. The war is Bush's and the Republicans'. Let it remain so.