lest ye be bullshat further...

David Sirota explains it all for you:

Here's how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know - it could change at the last minute). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a "rule" that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions - blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass. . .

Democratic lawmakers, of course, will use the Memorial Day recess to tell their angry constituents they really are using all of their power to end the war, that they voted against the Republican blank check amendment which the rule deliberately propels, and that the vote on the rule - which was the real vote for war - wasn't really the important vote, when, in fact, they know very well it is the biggest vote on the war since original 2002 authorization for the invasion. . .

Yet, most of these Democrats will likely vote for the rule, which is the real vote for war. Democrats voting yes on the rule are the ones who are casting their vote to give President Bush a blank check. . .

Got that? Congressional Dems offer up a game of "3-Card Monty" with their constituents playing the suckers:

Keep yer eyez on the red queen: Here it is here it is here it is -- WHERE IS IT!?

Wanna see it again?

Senate Dems from that "Gang of 14" (led by the odious Lieberlips) did the same thing last year when they voted AYE for cloture (the real vote the day before) before voting NAY against now-Justice Alito.

----------
Update: This companion piece from Bowers at MYDD offers a little logic as to why capitulating Dems fear criticism from a most unpopular president more than from an especially riled base:

If progressive grassroots activists are too demoralized to make small donations, the party becomes more reliant on large donors. If we are too demoralized to run for party office or challenge sitting Democrats in primaries, the establishment Democratic power structure are never held accountable for running ineffective campaigns or selling out the base.

If we don't use the strength of the progressive movement in the 2008 presidential primaries, then the influence the DLC-nexus, neoliberals, and LieberDems have in determining the direction of the Democratic Party increases. And on and on.

If sitting Dems believe this, then color me bewildered. I was always under the impression that people get up and go vote more when they're pissed off, especially in a primary. Best and most recent example: primary voters in Connecticut came out in record numbers last August and gave ol' Lieberlips a proper whacking.

Having said that, of course, individual states need to be sure not to allow losing incumbents an exception and the opportunity for a second bite at the apple. Lieberlips' subsequent re-election rendered the primary meaningless. Watch for further legislation, then, to emerge from the states calling for the elimination of primaries or, at least, minor adjustments, like letting incumbents skip right to the general election, a tidy end and the complete undermining of representative democracy.

Oligarchy!