Markos Moulitsas is perplexed. The polls are all breaking the Democrats’ way. In response to the question, “Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?” 34% said the President and 54% said the Democrats. And yet the Democrats still have yet to surrender in Iraq and begin formulating a plan for offering government-subsidized prayer rugs. Markos wonders, What gives? Why, he asks, are the Democrats “being so timid” in pulling the plug on Iraq?

Allow me to help with the answer. When the Democrats ran in 2006, they positioned themselves as anti-Bush on Iraq. No further elaboration was forthcoming. That was their entire Iraq platform. They insisted that providing plans for Iraq wasn’t in their job description, much in the way my petulant maid at Soxblog Manor insists that she doesn’t do windows. In 2006, being the anti-Bush was sufficient to enjoy a mighty electoral triumph.

But that doesn’t mean the Democrats received a mandate. After all, you have to actually stand for something in order to have the public mandate its support. The Democrats were mum on their plans regarding Iraq. It would thus be politically foolhardy to assume that the electorate supported Democratic candidates back in November as some sort of endorsement of Jack Murtha’s slow bleed strategy.

The only endorsement the public gave the Democrats was for the relentless drumbeat of criticism they directed at the war effort. To date, the Democrats have shown evidence of being enormously respectful of that oddly limited mandate. It’s no accident that the new congress’ most dramatic actions have come in the form of non-binding resolutions.

AND THEN THERE’S THIS: While the public clearly doesn’t like the war in Iraq, it also doesn’t like the idea of losing the war in Iraq. If the Democratic congress declares defeat or undermines the war effort, then they’ll risk public scorn. And it there’s one thing that the Democrats don’t want is public scorn. After all, we’re only 21 months away from a presidential election.

The Democrats maneuvering is actually a little sad and pathetic. There are some true believers in the party who believe the war is already lost and that we should thus withdraw post-haste. But if any of these true-believers are in the Senate, they obviously lack the courage of their convictions. The Senate, Democrats included, unanimously approved the appointment of David Petraeus. Retreat and defeat weren’t what Petraeus was proposing.

Markos is mistaking cravenness and weakness for timidity. The party-animal Democrats main interest as far is Iraq is concerned is that the war be as much of a benefit for them during the next election cycle as possible. If they actually take some sort of concrete action and that action redounds to America’s disadvantage, the Iraq issue could actually be detrimental for them the next time the electorate gathers.

So the strategy for most of the Democrats is to engage in political showmanship while not doing anything of consequence. They can pass non-binding resolutions. They can even try to provoke a constitutional crisis by attempting to micromanage the war and the military in a constitutionally unacceptable way that they know the president won’t accept. But none of these things will directly impact things on the ground in Iraq. It will remain Bush’s war, and the Democrats will remain the vociferous loyal opposition.

If Democrats really wanted to end the war, they could do so today in a constitutional manner by using the power of the purse. But they won’t do that. Do you wonder why? Hint: It has nothing to do with being timid.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.