From Michael Ramirez at IBD Editorials.

Given that the Dems were so focused on losing in Iraq this year, it is appropo that at the end of the day it is they who have been dubbed the losers: Dems Still Trumped by Bush in 2007 By LAURIE KELLMAN – 16 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — It's a painful irony for Democrats: In the space of a year, the Iraq war that was the source of party's resurgence in Congress became the measure of its impotence. By the end of the 2007, a Congress controlled by Democrats for the first time since 1994 had an approval rating of only 25 percent, down from 40 percent last spring. Then the debate over the war ...

Continuing our theme: Iraq is the "Turnaround of the Year." Not just militarily,  but legislatively and politically, as well. Barnes: An Astonishing Turnaround on Iraq December 19, 2007 By Fred Barnes An astonishing turnaround occurred in the Senate on Tuesday: 70 senators voted to fund the Iraq war with a fresh $70 billion and no strings attached. Think about this a moment. Last winter, after Democrats captured the Senate and House, it seemed likely they'd succeed in limiting or ending the Iraq war, probably by setting a firm timetable for withdrawal of American troops. After all, both President Bush and the war itself were highly unpopular. The Democratic triumph in the election made that clear, even to those who doubted opinion polls. And ...

In a great piece in The Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery says that the Dems surge against the surge is a case study in political futility. The Stab That Failed The congressional Democrats' surge-against-the-surge -- a case study in political futility. by Noemie Emery 12/03/2007, Volume 013, Issue 12 Eagerly anticipating the defeat in Iraq to which they are so much attached, some on the left have also been preparing for another contingency: the assault that they think they see coming, a drive to pin the whole wretched failure on them. Apparently, this will be "stab in the back" redux, a new iteration of the theme deployed so successfully in interwar Germany by a resourceful, ambitious Austrian corporal, who managed to propel his rise to power with the claim that World War I would have been won by his country, if not for sinister forces at home. Then, it was subversion by Jews and other disloyal elements. This time, in the left's imagining, the blame will fall on the press and the Democrats who, by pulling the plug at just the wrong moment, caused the loss of Iraq. "Nobody I know in a rational condition believes that the United States is going to have any kind of a military victory," Mark Shields said in August. "So the idea is going to be, 'We were on the cusp of victory and the rug was pulled out from under us by these willy-nilly, weak-kneed, nervous Nellies back home.'" The problem with this is (1) that we may really win, and have no failure to blame upon anyone, and (2) that the nervous Nellies really did try to keep us from winning, indeed fought fang and claw to derail our best efforts. If they had had their way, Iraq would still be the quagmire they are so fond of invoking, and the United States--or George W. Bush, which may be the more relevant factor--would have incurred a definitive and, at least in his case, legacy-blasting defeat. It is unfair of course to call this a stab in the back, as the Democrats have been engagingly open about their intentions. In the course of the past year, they have gone from attacking a plan that had not been effective to attacking one that hadn't been tried yet, to attacking one that exceeded all expectations, while in the process ignoring reality, slandering a commanding general, and denying American forces in battle due credit for what they had done. If not backstabbing as such (see above), it is diverting enough a spectacle to merit a replay. Let us look back at this last year of battle and see how the story played out. When our tale opens, it is the last month of 2006, Democrats have just scored a blowout in Congress, Iraq is in shambles, and the country is calling for Bush to change course. He does. But he changes course in the other direction, radically revising his Iraq strategy, adopting aggressive new rules of engagement, and sending in 30,000 more troops. Even before the plan was announced to the public on January 10, 2007, Democrats launched their assault. Senator Christopher Dodd declared the plan useless: "A 'surge' of American troops will do nothing." Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrats in the new Congress, released an open letter to Bush on January 5, decrying his redoubled effort as futile: "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed." The surge was "a sad, ominous echo of something we've lived through in this country," according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. "I'm confident it will not work," said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama. "Verdict first, trial afterwards," said the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, unaware of her future as a role model for America's congressional Democrats. And then it really got strange.

(Michael Ramirez at IBD.) Just when you thought they couldn't sink further, Congress is at 11 percent approval. The President's 29% looks stellar in comparison.

Like the monster/villain/zombie/alien in the last horror flick you rented, the "immigration reform" bill (a.k.a. amnesty for everyone bill) is ALIVE! The bill, supported by just 22% of Americans, has been brought back to the floor for debate. This does not mean that it will eventually pass, of course. I talked with a staffer from Ben Nelson's office this morning who said that Nelson is opposed to the bill itself, but that as a matter of principle he believes every bill deserves an up or down vote. Nelson's vote was one of the 64 YEAs, though he will (hopefully) vote against the bill itself. If you're concerned that your senators will betray the ...

Turns out that the "new direction" the Dems have taken in Congress looks amazingly similar to the old direction of the Dems: fund your pet projects even if it means circumventing the process. From a story in today's WaPo entitled, "In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served," When the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives passed one of its first spending bills, funding the Energy Department for the rest of 2007, it proudly boasted that the legislation contained no money earmarked for lawmakers' pet projects and stressed that any prior congressional requests for such spending "shall have no legal effect." Within days, however, lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) began directly ...

From CNNMoney.com: A new survey by the National Retail Federation said rising gasoline prices are a growing worry for consumers and retailers as prices at the pump hit a record high for a sixth straight day Friday. The motorist group AAA said the average price for a gallon of self-serve unleaded hit $3.129 in its latest reading, based on a daily survey of up to 85,000 gas stations. That's up from Thursday's record of $3.114. The group warned in congressional testimony this week it believes that more record prices could be on the way. It's forecasting prices will approach $3.25 a gallon over the next 60 days. Neil Cavuto reminds us (video | transcript) of what some key Democrats have ...

Harry Reid threw up his hands today in the universal sign of surrender as he and the Dems surrendered to President Bush over the issue of troop withdrawal timelines. The New York Times reports: "Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq. The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war. A Democratic effort to include timelines prompted Mr. Bush’s veto of the original bill last month, producing a political impasse." "Representative Steny ...

In the Band of Brothers miniseries, in the 7th out of 10 episodes, one of the men noted that the men started to get a sense that the outcome of the war had already been decided. Knowing this, they were a little extra careful, a little more cautios. After surviving so much, none of them wanted to get killed or injured that close to the end of the war. Fast-forward 60-odd years. The Democrats have already declared that the outcome of the war in Iraq is certain. We've lost, or so they tell us. If that's the case, why are the fiddling around with arbitrary withdrawal dates 18 months away? If they truly care for ...