The Democrats' Strategy for Iraq
Mark Kleiman lays it out for them:
Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn't need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm.
Take, for example, the Webb Amendment, forbidding troops from being required to serve tours in Iraq longer than the spells between tours. If passed, it would force a troop drawdown by spring.
The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.
If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda. Read on...
See? Congressional Democrats, take note. Rather than retreat back into the battered spouse routine you've got perfected, do your part to act like the majority party. I promise you'll see your collective approval ratings shoot up.
Jane asks why Republicans want to punish the troops for Bush's failures.
Maybe I'm wrong, but weren't some of us here sayin' the exact same thing back in the spring/early summer? 'Cause this idea seems downright familiar.
Make W sign vetos until his arm falls off!
Expect a harsh statement from Reid/Pelosi to follow. That's all. Just a harsh statement.
A few weeks back someone was on C&L and at least a couple of us tried to tell him that the 60-vote thingy was pure garbage. Why won't anyone listen?
And when the Repubs use their media infrastructure to criticize Dems for trying to micro-manage troop deployments, etc., get out in force and tell the citizens that we need somebody new dictating this conflict, since it's been mishandled (i.e. f&cked up) so badly!
just do'nt givem anymore money....
under NO circumstance
it's time to cut this ridiculous dept of WAR down to size
750 bases OUTSIDE the US
1 officer for every 5 men
and the majority you would'nt let change oil in your car
We're assuming that the democrats really want this war to end.
They don't act that way.
Mostly, they don't even talk that way.
Why is this so hard for the dems to understand? They do have power and the majority of Americans want them to use it to stop this war.
Well, I love the never-say-die optimism. It could work that way. But personally, I'd put my money on the Dems making a token gesture of defiance which will be used as a "liberals don't support the troops!" opportunity for the Repub talking heads. The Dems will withdraw their impotent show of defiance and give Bush exactly what he asked for. Anybody want to bet against me on that one?
That sounds nice, but do you really think the Democratic leadership has the plumbs to follow through with a plan like that? We all saw how quickly they caved the last time...
Zero-out the funding. That's permitted. Committee Chairs in HASC and SASC can zero-out funds; and the GOP would be required to pass an amendment -- requiring 2/3 votes in the Senate -- to add money back. If the President vetoes the "zero-out funding" option, he gets . . .nothing. Either the Speaker or the Senate Majority Leader could do this.
The current Webb bill plays a game of "see if we can get the President to agree" with what he won't do. The "The Democrats’ Strategy for Iraq" should be: Zero-out funding by a date-certain, "we will no longer support US troops in Iraq after X-date."
"Strategy"? Yeah, right. Just like Bush, they can't tell the difference between tactics and strategy. God help us.
democrats are the hidden 'predator' victims. that would explain their complete lack of spine. No matter how many ways they are offered their spines back, they still reject the overtures so that they may bend over more easily when boosh, bayner or LIEberman smack them in the face.
Why do you assume the Dems want a different strategy in Iraq from the GOP's? You're telling them what to do to oppose the GOP but there is no evidence that they really want to do that. The Dems want pretty much the same thing the Reps want: 1) Control over Iraq's oil reserves 2) a Beach head in the heart of the Arab Middle-east, at Iran's door, and 3) a happy AIPAC (i.e. follow AIPAC foreign policy).
Therefore the Dems will not do what you suggest. They will posture and pretend to oppose the GOP because it's politically convenient, but they will not do anything of substance that would drastically change the current strategy.
about time they did this...and Why haven't they done this already?...And I agree with Andy K....we have discussed this at length months ago.
Isome @ 4:
Andy K @ 1:
The "60 vote thingy" is a ruse by which the Democrats
A) Maintain the pretense that they are actually representing the electorate who swept them into power;
B) Pretend that they would love to do something about the nasty old war if only they had the votes;
C) Avoid inconvenient questions about why they are pushing the main "benchmark" of the oil law which was written by the Bush administration and would essentially turn over Iraqi oil to US big oil on sweetheart terms that would provide double standard length long term leases and double standard royalties;
D) Avoid inconvenient questions about who is gonna protect the ports, pipelines and oilfields for Exxon and company when that deal passes and for how long. Think the Iraqis are gonna do it for us?
It's called a sellout, folks! If you want to know what your representative's real position is, just find out what they are saying about the oil law!
Isome @ 4:
Well, yer half right.
When it comes to fundin', because Congress controls the purse and thus can starve the beast, in this case the cloture/filibuster carries much less weight.
But when it comes to mere resolutions- like, say, the Let's Send Bush Back To Kindergarten Act of 2007- acts that don't do nothing for the GOP, no how, no way, the cloture vote is still effective.
I just sent that article to Reid, Pelosy, my congresswoman, and senators. Hopefully they will get a clue....but more likely they will still approve more money. We have to keep pushing though.
mudshark @ 15:
Thanks, muddy! I was startin' to think I was goin' nuts or somethin'!
Het, Nicole! Can't ya take an idea seriously if it comes from yer own comments section? Or do we have to have our own top-tier blogs to get some love?
;)
Just like those old airline commercials about smaller and smaller snacks... I like it..... Of course the dems need that spine thing before it can work... Hmmmm, let me get back to ya on that last...Not too sure that spine thing exists in them yet.....JD
Great plan! If only the Democrats could find a backbone. Everybody talks and talks and talks ... and nothing is getting done. I don't expect any change until we get a new leadership. Not a new President, not a new congress. Leaders willing to work for real change not politicians changing talking points.
Sigh.....this is Dejavu all over again. We tell our elected Dems what to do. They leave their nuts at home and go to DC to appease Bush. Throw them all out. They are the same as the Republicans...
Yes, this is exactly what the Dems should do, just like we all said way back when...put the bill up and don't give in until it gets passed, if the funding gets held up then its on the Republicans and his holiness, the great presidunce boosh.
Wait a SECOND!
You used the words 'Democrat' and 'Strategy' in the same sentence!
ROTFLM M/F AO
Don't pick a fight with the Repubs and Dubya. They're just stubborn. Use their reality distortion field to get what you want.
Look, no matter how many bombings, shootings, beheadings, rapes, kidnaps, etc happen, no matter how much blood and money pour into the sand, no matter how badly screwed up things are, so long as a flower blooms anywhere in Anbar...or Tikrit...or Baghdad...or in some village in the Kurdish North...or whatever...that'll be "the good progess."
So, run with their premise. The surge has been and overwhelming success. It was brilliantly executed and our stalwart commander-in-chief is to be commended for keeping faith with the rising democratic tide in the Middle East, despite the endless drumming for an end to the conflict. He was brave and true and kept the course even when all had abandoned him.
Brothers and sisters! The glorious surge has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams!
Now, let us spend that dividend on those who deserve it most! Our soldiers! Let us give them the benefit of the hard-won victory they've so courageously fought for!
Like that.
The way not to play Bush: use argument and reason to refute his assumptions
The way to play Bush: figure out what the right thing is and then guide him into believing that that was really his idea all along.
I mean, he resisted escalating this war for years when escalation might have been the right thing. Now that escalation is just piling failure upon failure, he's all for it. Why? Got convinced that escalation was his idea all along.
Let's get ahead of the ball this time. Troop withdrawls are a part of his glorious plan. It's brilliant! So, more withdrawls = more brilliance!
Flatter. Him.
Yeah, I agree with this strategy. It's something the Democrats could have been doing since January. As it is, I fully expect them to hand another blank check to BushCo. Maybe they'll hold a hearing on it...and then do nothing.
"Democratic leadership" is an oxymoron. I've been waiting for years to be pleasantly surprised at the evidence of some spine. Ain't happening. Surprise us, Dems. Pleeeeze, surprise us.
...Throw them all out. They are the same as the Republicans…
And replace them with... what? Just asking...
> And replace them with… what?
Nothing. Let's just have conferences of local leaders decide things. Apparently that's a model for democracy.
UnEasyOne @ 16:
I understand yer pissed at the gridlock, but yer anger is aimed at the wrong bunch, even if some of yer suspicions are probably correct.
The votes were there(a simple majority) to pass the Webb Amendment the last time it came up. The votes(60) weren't there to get cloture and an up or down vote, and the votes(67) certainly aren't there to override the certain veto. And the last time out the Dems had Bushco so fuckin' desperate that Stupor Mundi hisself was stoopin' to shout 'bout the rider that contained compensation fer the spinach farmers who voluntarily chucked their crop before the official recall in last summer's e coli scare.
The Democrats aren't stupid. Many have been in government for decades. They KNOW the ropes. They simply DON'T WANT to end this occupation. They WANT us to have a presence in the M.E. They WANT the military spending - which is propping up the economy - to continue. They KNOW we need the oil. They just posture and stall and wring their hands in mock disgust. Phonies - every one of 'em.
JasonS @ 29:
There's a reason that Athenian Democracy lived a short life. The whims of the populace are easily influenced by demagogues.
I'll take a Republic any day. The problems aren't inherent in its system, only its citizens willingness to uphold it.
They're not going to cut off funding, they never would. The Democrats are using the war to win the presidency. They need the war to win. You guys could all call or write your elected representatives (on actual paper) and tell them to come up with a real solution that's somewhere in between Surge! and cutting off funding completely.
wakeup @ 31:
Once again- The Democrats in both houses of Congress have enough votes to pass the Webb Amendment! The problem is that there are at least 41 Republican senators who are keeping the vote from coming to the floor!
Gene @ 33:
What do you think the Webb Amendment is, Gene?
Hi AndyK....keep it up....your on a roll....
Silly little idealistic people thinking the Democrats are going to play hardball for once.
The dirty Republicans and the idiot in the White House tell the Democrats what to do.
Stop it with the "but, but, but, the Democrats can . . ."
They ain't going to do it. They are cowards. Until the Democrats realize that the people will abandon them unless they end this piece of shit war, they aren't going to be engaging in parliamentary tactics fit for shows like the west wing.
The Democrats aren't going to end this war because YOU aren't scaring them. Until you do, stop it with the hair-brained congressional tactics that you think they should engage in. They don't care what you think, obviously.
This is really nothing new in terms of strategy. Pat Buchanan, of all people, suggested that the Democrats take this position several months back in the budget debates.
The democrats won't have the balls to do this, plain and simple.
mudshark @ 36:
Some of 'em have gotta be agent provocateurs, muddy, I swear...I know I haven't been postin' a lot lately, but I've been readin'...And I've been noticin' too many things that look like subtle divide and conquer tactics.
Andy K @ 40:
yep.....I've been thinking the same thing......
AndyK..in particular all the people who are in favor of Ron Paul...thats a dead give away....personally I think their out of their minds...
The Democrats aren't "cowards" any more than Heath Ledger is really the Joker.
They're playing a part in a political theater.
There are differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. Just like there's differences between the Dodgers and the Giants. But just as both the Dodgers and Giants are dedicated to the sport of baseball, so are the Ds and Rs dedicated to the exercise of political power.
The role the Democrats play is to provide a "mainstream," "serious," (read: phony, cooked up, ineffectual) counter to the Republicans' power structure, a structure which they support and endorse.
And just as the Dodgers and Giants will play "hardball" when they face each other, neither will do anything on purpose to jeopardize baseball. Until Karl Rove shows up and starts handing out the steroids.
That's what happened here. The power game got too big and too corrupt. But the players are so inured of the game that they will do anything, anything, to keep the ship afloat.
So, placate the growing anti-war "70 percenters" with tough talk and phony posturing and then claim there's nothing you can do so long as the other party enjoys any kind of power.
I mean, really, do we want a "permanent Democratic majority" any more than a Republican majority?
The whole "we can't do shit unless you give us unlimited power" argument needs to die.
The Republican and Democratic parties have outlived their usefulness, but their grip on power is strong enough that they will sit there, doing nothing, both of them, while our country and this planet sinks into the sea.
When it gets really REALLY bad (ie, when we start to actually feel the results of their incompetence, not just see it on TV), there will be some reform. Just enough to get us to shut up.
And then it'll start again.
And Ralph Nader can't save us from that. We're. Plain. Fucked.
Ex-Canuck @ 39:
It's not a question of balls. As many on this thread have correctly pointed out, the Democrats really do not want to do anything about Iraq. They apparently want to steal the oil of Muslim countries instead of paying for it like other nations, and it makes a nice campaign issue. (Forget about all the US troops and Iraqi civilians who are going to die in the delay.) It is unbelievable that the will of about 70% of the country has no voice in either party. I hope MoveOn carries out its threat to put up candidates in the primaries to challenge the Democratic hawks, and I am voting for independents whenever possible. Here in Oregon we will have an independent, John Frohnmayer, running for Gordon Smith's Senate seat. Last week Frohnmayer called for the impeachment of Cheney/Bush, and the two leading Democratic contenders savaged him for it.
mudshark @ 42:
Paulists, Naderites, just plain old 28%ers...
What folks aren't gettin' is that the Petraeus Report marks the end of the compromise, the Webb Amendment will be re-introduced.
Petraeus has given Bushco a slight bump. But it's only that: a bump. Petraeus' direct higher-up, Admiral Fallon, will be called to testify. GAO figures will be used. The Webb Amendment will pass, or there won't be any more fundin' for the war, withdrawal or not. No more Friedman Units to prove out Bushco's stategy. Hell, the government might shut down fer a while. Today's Blackwater related news won't mean jack-shit, 'cause Erik's his boys will pull themselves out if they aren't gettin' paid.
aaaaawww man! Get ready for a stern letter! Reid is haaaaarrrrd !
abarts @ 3:
Or a stern letter.
"Anything that can be ridden on the Defense Appropriations bill (or on a continuing resolution) doesn’t need 60 votes in the Senate. It needs 51 votes in the Senate, or 218 in the House, that will stand firm."
Gee, that's great.
• Too bad we only have about THIRTY votes in the Senate that will 'stand firm.'
If you would learn to count the votes, you would not be suckered into these false announcements of how easy it would be for the Democrats to accomplish the impossible.
I've spent a lot of time up in the archives of my local library, and I gotta tell you, this is almost exactly how it went down in '74-75.
We all know the fanatical right-wingers didn't learn a damn thing from Vietnam/Watergate other than how to lie better. What's remarkable is that the Left is even more dumb today than they were back in the Seventies.
E. Howard Hunt, prior to his passing earlier this year, more than once suggested Watergate was really about JFK, or the so-called "Bay of Pigs Thing."
Yet, back, in '75, everyone just bought Ford's "national healing" horseshit and let the crooks off the hook.
And then during Iran-Contra, the same scumbags got off the hook.
And so all this crap got passed on to you and I today.
And it's gonna be a hell of a lot worse for your children and grandchildren.
P.S. Does anyone know, are we allowed to talk about the mysterious collapse of WTC7 on this site yet? Or are we all still shakin' in our boots and so Goddamned drunk & stoned we just want some national healin'?
Wait, so what you are saying Andy K. is that the last time they acted like they would cut funding but didn't was some sort of compromise? To give the surge a chance?
Anthology @ 7:
You are exaggerating hugely with your 'democrats.' You realize there are two bodies involved?
HOUSE DEMOCRATS are on record with ending the war, now.
"(a) Requirement- The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq by not later than April 1, 2008."
Bush vetoed that. The House also passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq (which also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq).
Bush signed that law, but of course he has signed similar language before twice (since the Dems took over the Congressional leadership).
There are about ninety members of the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House, which I think is the largest caucus group in the House. There is no equivalent body in the Senate, and we only control about 30 of those votes on this issue.
But keep bashing the Dems -- you are helping your enemies.
nincompoop @ 50:
The House never accepted the surge. Bush vetoed the supplemental, and the Blue Dogs withdrew their votes. So the House leadership put minimum wage and Katrina relief into the bill, two acts which would not have passed the Senate otherwise. That had NOTHING to do with giving the surge a chance, not in the House.
If the Dems are smart (a big "IF"), they should pass a budget which requires that Bush withdraw, set time tables, etc. If Bush vetos all these bills and keeps vetoing them, then it will be Bush who keeps or send our troops into harm's way, not Congress. Bush needs to take responsibility for his decisions. It will be Bush who is responsible for any harm that results because it will be Bush, not Congress, that decided that our troops should stay in harm's way under the circumstances.
naschkatze @ 44: As many on this thread have correctly pointed out, the Democrats really do not want to do anything about Iraq. They apparently want to steal the oil of Muslim countries instead of paying for it like other nations, and it makes a nice campaign issue."
You're lying. The House passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq (which also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq).
"I am voting for independents whenever possible."
Any independents you manage to elect will have to caucus with the Democrats ANYHOW. Think about that for ten minutes.
Paul in LA @ 51:
Bullsh*t. They all (at one time or another) deserve to get bashed...alot. Hell, most of them voted us into this thing, never actually read the Patriot act before casting their "yays" and gladly take corporate money so they can stay in power. Our "enemies" are greed, laziness and corruption. Last time I looked that was a non-partisan affliction.
Guillotine!!!
> But keep bashing the Dems — you are helping your enemies.
Again with the false choices. "Don't bash Group A! You'll only help Group B! And you hate Group B don't you?"
I'm done being manipulated this way. You have to provide an actual alternative, not just rhetoric.
It is true that the Dems have put forward some effort. And then they fold. Almost as if those efforts were designed to placate rather than govern.
The Dems aren't being weak. They are part of the problem. They have fully endorsed this situation, voted FOR it again and again and keep turning to us to ask for MORE power.
Just give us a little MORE power and we promise things will get better.
Just wait another six months.
Just wait for another report.
Just wait for the next bill.
Just wait for the next Amendment.
I'm done. I'm done waiting. I'm out. They are corrupt crooks and liars and just because they're nominally opposed to another group of crooks and liars with whom they are carving up this country like a turkey doesn't mean I need to support them.
Will the Webb Amendment pass? Yes. And Bush will sign it. And he'll add a little signing statement to the effect that his power as commander-in-chief allows him to override the provisions of the Webb Amendment. And then he will. And the Democrats will cry foul. They may even sue him. And the courts may agree to hear the case...some time in 2010.
But, hey, at least they'll have passed the amendment!
Paul in LA @ 54:
Why are people coming out of the woodwork now and admitting it was all about oil? It still is, and I'm using the word "steal" metaphorically, as in, "This hat? It was a steal." Cheap oil, then, if it will make you happier. And I'm aware that independents will have to caucus with the Democrats. Lieberman is doing that now, but he is doing his own thing, supporting the Republicans rather than the Democrats I would say.
The Dems definitely have two views: wait, wait until next year make noise but no waves and you're in. Or, listen to the base and run the risk of being tarred by the repukes as losing Iraq.
All the feeling around since the election is to find a good strategy. Something like Webb's has the right mix of doing something and not fucking up 2008. That's my theory anyway. If the Dems don't execute it, then it's to the streets!
nincompoop @ 50:
What's the thrust of the o.p.?
Wait, I'll answer that: it's about pushin' the Webb Amendment through cloture and to the floor of the Senate.
The last time this happened there were enough Senators who said they would vote fer the amendment so that it would pass(that's 51 votes, minimum), nearly all Democrats, with a handful of Republicans. There weren't, however, enough votes(60 required) to end debate(cloture) and send that version of the bill to the floor for a vote.
So the Democrats, instead of not funding anything for the support of the troops in Iraq(and remember that the war is funded outside of the regular Defense budget), compromised to spend only enough for a few months, on the provision that Bushco meet a certain number of benchmarks of success in Iraq, a report to be made to the Senate by General Petraeus outlinin' those successes.
By Bushco's own admission, the majority of those benchmarks haven't been met. More Republicans are tricklin' over to the Democrats side on this legislation. When the Senate brings in Fallon, brings in more evidence that Petraeus was blowin' sunshine up the public's ass with Potemkin Math, the bump in the polls that the GOP has gotten in the last week will go away.
The Senate will pass this bill. It might take a few more cloture votes, but if they grab the initiative and hit the GOP hard it will pass.
Not that Bush will sign it, though. Then the process will begin again.
And people will still post horseshit about the Congressional Dems bein' ineffective when, in reality, those Dems are doin' all that they can.
Johnny2Bad @ 55:
'Most' is 40% of House Dems, even giving you the benefit of the doubt on the claim that the Iraq Resolution gave Bush authority to do what he has (which it didn't).
As for 'reading the Patriot Act,' here's a key piece of information: the Congress has not read the bills it votes on in at least FIFTY years. They vote based on summaries. That's been a problem for a very, very long time. Why haven't you done anything about it before?
So. I figure it went something like this.
Jan. 01 07
Bush, So how do we play this?
Pelosi, O K what you do is advance the idea that an increase in troops will win the war.
Bush, You mean a "surge".
Pelosi, Hmmm??? Yeah that's good.
Bush, And that can go on for how long?
Pelosi, What do you think? 6 months at least. That isn't too long and we can say that we are giving the new "surge" a chance and that we would be unable to pass any other measures until we gave you the "Surge".
Bush, And then in Sept. we fight about funding the war and I capitulate to have a reduction in forces making it appear as though you're being effective against the war. And we are really still where we are today(01/01/07). Fully funding the war in Iraq.
Pelosi, Brilliant
Bush. Brilliant
Exactly what is it that has changed?
Democrats?
Republicans?
Same old lies! The more the Democrats go along the more I realize that I will vote against every incumbent even if it means a vote for a rethuglican. Never have more crimes been committed and not prosecuted than in this administration. Complicity rules the way of politics. This is not the country I swore to defend.
I wrote: "But keep bashing the Dems — you are helping your enemies."
JasonS @ 56: "Again with the false choices."
That's NOT a false choice, that's politics as they are today in America. If you bash the Dems, you are adding Republican votes.
"It is true that the Dems have put forward some effort. And then they fold. Almost as if those efforts were designed to placate rather than govern."
What you call 'folding' is the actual political situation -- we don't have enough votes to overcome Bush's veto, nor do we have enough votes in the Senate to pass most bills. That's the facts, and they aren't going to change until 2008, so you might as well can your diatribe, because you will be needing it every two weeks for the rest of next year.
naschkatze @ 57:
Oil, and air bases, and an attack on Iran.
But the point is that the House has passed bills into law which states specifically that this is not legal US policy, as Senator Kerry did in the first debate of 2004, when he said:
"The United States has NO legitimate longterm interests in staying in Iraq."
After noting that the airbases looked pretty permanent.
Paul in LA @ 52:
So what's your point then?
There are Democrats out there that support the war including the surge and pretty much everything.
Should people not be pissed about that? Should they not feel betrayed?
If it's Senate Dems and "Blue Dog" (Bush Dog) Dems that are in the way, then you can't use the Bush veto excuse or the we don't have a supermajority excuse.
Put the blame where it lies, in about 1/3 of Dems in Congress.
JasonS @ 56:
So when Stupor Mundi issues that signin' statement where's he gonna get the money fer his war?
And if yer out, where are ya goin'? To a third party? Good luck with that- the USA's political history over the last 150 years is strewn with the wreckage of third parties. Yer best served by joinin' one of those two parties that's survived and workin' from inside the system.
But ya sound like ya wanna change the system. Okay, two ways to do that: write a new Constitution(try doin' that outside of the two party system!), or throwin' a revolution(Hope you've got a modern air force and navy- you'll need 'em).
If ya haven't noticed, this country is slow to change. And there's a reason fer that: the men who wrote the Constitution made it that way. They saw the effects of capricious rule. They set it up so that if radical change is called for the voters will notice and elect representatives who will make those changes. In my estimation only one of these changes has occured, and that was in the wake of the Great Depression. And those changes were good. But the American people had to show patience after the events of 1929- three (plus) years!
So show some patience. 'Cause at the rate they're goin', the Republicans are forcin' their own demise.
JamesR @ 61:
You're a slandering bastard.
Pelosi came to power opposing Bush's Iraq Resolution, the first woman in the history of the United States to rise to the minority leader position. She has actively opposed this war.
>That’s NOT a false choice, that’s politics as they are today in America. If you bash the Dems, you are adding Republican votes.
So? Is that the only reason to vote for the Democrats? That it hurts the Republicans?
I don't care anymore. I want to vote for someone WHO FUCKING STANDS FOR SOMETHING. I'm no longer interested in merely annoying Republicans.
>What you call ‘folding’ is the actual political situation — we don’t have enough votes to overcome Bush’s veto
Last I checked, the Democrats get to decide which bills make it to the floor. If the Republicans want to filibuster and veto, that's their problem.
But, if lacking the votes to overcome a veto means that you automagically must give the president everything he wants, then why all the posturing NOW? Why pretend that you can get anything past the president? Why not just rubber stamp everything until you get your 67 votes?
Why waste our time?
Because it keeps us from bolting the party altogether.
"Oh, they couldn't override his veto...that's why they had to capitulate on each and every point."
Why does the door not swing the other way? Why are we not talking about BUSH being unable to EXTRACT a bill from Congress? Why are we only talking about CONGRESS being unable to PUSH a bill to the WH?
They have the votes. This is a lie upon a lie upon a lie. Democrats can end this thing tomorrow.
The just don't want to and I'm done supporting the Judas Goat as he leads us into the slaughter.
And maybe I'll be ranting every 2 weeks. And you'll be here every 2 weeks explaining how they just HAD to authorize an open-ended, ongoing combat mission.
Just like the HAD to vote for the Patriot Act.
And they HAD to pass warrantless wiretapping.
And they just HAD to support a resolution condemning Iran.
And they just HAD to support the invasion of Iran.
And they just HAD to go along with...
One thing we've heard over and over from various sources is that the Democratic-controlled Congress can't stop American involvement in the war without a "veto-proof" majority or some such thing. That's just not true. The problem with this and many other accounts is that Congress does not have to pass legislation to bring an end to the war--it simply has to block passage of any bill that would continue to fund the war. This requires not 67 or 60 Senate votes, or even 51, but just 41 votes--the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster and prevent a bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, the Democrats have more than enough votes to end the Iraq War--if they choose to do so.
It is precisely for this reason that The Constitution gives Congress the power "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." The limit on the length of military appropriations was explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers (No. 24) as "a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity." In Federalist (No. 26) , he elaborated:
"The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents."
That, in a nutshell, is what was wrong with the coverage of the war funding debate. If Congress wanted to force the Bush administration to accept a bill with a withdrawal timeline, it didn't have to pass the bill over Bush's veto—it just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming. Given that the Constitution requires Congress to approve all spending, Bush needs Congress's approval to continue the war—Congress does not need Bush's approval to end the war.
The Democratic leadership may believe--rightly or wrongly--that such a strategy would entail unacceptable political costs. But that's very different from being unable to affect policy. To insist, as many media outlets have, that the Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to stop the war obscures the actual choices facing the nation--by confusing "can't" with "won't."
from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
nincompoop @ 64: "There are Democrats out there that support the war including the surge and pretty much everything."
Correct. Apparently you have never heard the acronym DINO before (Democrat In Name Only).
"Should people not be pissed about that? Should they not feel betrayed?"
Should they? THEY ELECTED THOSE BASTARDS.
"If it's Senate Dems and "Blue Dog" (Bush Dog) Dems that are in the way, then you can't use the Bush veto excuse or the we don't have a supermajority excuse."
All of that is the problem -- it is not an excuse.
"Put the blame where it lies, in about 1/3 of Dems in Congress."
Does that help you get your mind around why bashing ALL (or the majority) of Dems for that 1/3 is wrong? Then go for it.
• If you did not know that the Blue Dogs and 1/3 of the Senate Dems were supporting Bush's policies, then you haven't been paying attention. And, it's not the Speaker's fault that those representatives are in the Congress. She inherited them -- she didn't campaign for them in Georgia and Virginia and Wyoming, and all the rest.
If you want to move to their districts and work against them, Chairman Dean will probably send you some money. But don't pretend that you are betrayed by duly-elected representatives chosen in the context of typically Republican districts where the R candidate has lost favor.
These candidates run as Dems so they can run outside the R leadership restrictions protecting incumbents. That's simply not news.
> And if yer out, where are ya goin’? To a third party?
Feh...I've never been a Democrat. I've never joined a political party and now I never will.
I do vote for Democrats, however. Those days are coming to an end.
I will joyously, happily, vote for every commie, green, libertarian, peace 7 freedom or whatever party so long as they don't demonstrate this level of vile corruption.
But I'll never join. I'll never add my name to a game that has betrayed this nation.
And there's nothing about political parties in the Constitution. We can rid this country of them if we want to without changing a single law.
Just because one gang of criminals is battling another doesn't mean you have to pick a fucking side. To hell with both parties.
To hell with them.
Andy K @ 59:
So what you are saying is they compromised to give the surge a chance.
They didn't want to take the tougher road of shutting off funding altogether or to simply let the funds run out as Bush vetoes bill after bill.
So you agree. The Democrats wanted to give the surge a chance.
Paul in LA @ 54:
So what are you saying? That the two parties have things locked up and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it so we had better just vote for them anyway.
Dr Rick @ 68:
We have THIRTY.
That number isn't going to change much, either. We do NOT have forty-one votes for bills opposing this illegal war. Blaming Leader Reid or the rest of the loyal 30 Senators for that situation is ignoring the fact that the Leader did not elect those Senators, and it is VERY difficult to remove Senators -- it was DESIGNED that way.
The Dems should listen to the trial attorney who is running for president. ( Just to remind everyone, JohnEdwards,the man who the MSM forgets to name and Rush calls the "Breck Girl".) Hold firm. Remember the Repugs said the filibuster was unpatriotic and probably is also terroristic. Therefore let the Repugs take down their masks and show the disfigurement that lies beneath their flag masks. A war without end can only be directed by people without hearts and souls. Fearing death so much that you want to inflict it first upon others, many of whom are innocents and children, to save yourself is not living.
Andy K @ 65:
Except when it suits the rich and powerful. Then it's mighty quick to change.
I give you the last six years as an example.
JasonS @ 67:
Don't know if ya've ever noticed this before, but there's a lot more to the governance of the nation than Iraq, Iran and the Patriot Act.
Let's see what would happen if Congressional Dems didn't go to work:
Day one: There goes Medicare....and Social Security!
Day two: There go the highways, sold to the highest bidder!
Day three: State religion, abolishment of all but one party,widespread disenfranchisement, and what the hell, let's make this Rump Congress permanent.
Day four: Ya get the picture- it's a view of the world through the slit of a window in yer prison cell. Or are ya goin' down shootin'?
nincompoop @ 71: "So you agree. The Democrats wanted to give the surge a chance."
Nonsense. The Democratic leadership to a person opposed the surge (with the possible exception of Senator Levin).
"So what are you saying? That the two parties have things locked up and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it so we had better just vote for them anyway."
This is a two-party system, correct. Let me alert you to one singular fact:
YOU DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE LEFTIST IN GOVERNMENT.
So you have a lot of work to do if you want to supplant the Dem party, which will control the Congress for the next twenty years if not more, as a result of what has happened.
We will pick up eight Senate seats, and perhaps thirty House seats, on the outside. It will be a Democratic supermajority then, and we will get a lot done for the country, as we already have with our bare majority -- if not enough yet to overcome a coup by legislation in the absence of a functional justice system.
cleo @ 73:
They should totally listen to John Edwards. You're right.
What's he got to say?
So thank you for telling us about war and people without hearts and souls, like trial lawyers.
nincompoop @ 74: Except when it suits the rich and powerful. Then it's mighty quick to change. I give you the last six years as an example."
A coup is not a legal government. Just about every one of our laws has been intentionally broken. To expect a democracy to manage that effectively is absurd.
But, to agree with your main point:
"Capital makes no contracts." -- Jean Baudrillard
JasonS @ 56:
ok your out...fine if that's how you feel....I can understand your frustration....just remember..if you don't vote or vote 3rd party and the Repubs win....don't bitch because you had your chance to change things and you didn't try.A 3rd party will do nothing but divide the votes ..kinda like what happened in 2000 w/Gore...Thanks to all the people who voted for Nader...and yes I understand that caused little ..but it certainly contributed .........most of us here are tired and pissed off too...but it's gonna take patience.....lots of patience
It's not news to anyone that John Edwards voted for the Iraq Resolution, along with a little more than half of the Dem Senators.
Bashing him four years later for having understood his error is pretty meaningless.
Again, what do the Democrats have besides not being the Republicans?
Asked three times, answered never.
A Democratic president pushed NAFTA.
A Democratic president passed welfare reform (oh, right he HAD to...the Republicans controlled Congress)
The Dems will sell you out as fast as the Republicans.
And the Republicans have the same fear-based propaganda you do.
Imagine what would happen in an all-Democrat government?
Day One: Gay Marriage
Day Two: All religions outlawed except Wicca
Day Three: Free government-funded crack for welfare mothers
Day Four: you get the picture
It's all just the same bullshit meant to keep us afraid of each other.
Maybe if we stopped LISTENING to this crap and started DEMANDING work on our consensus issues, the two parties would improve.
But as it stands, they make MUCH more hay out of keeping us afraid of each other.
See? See? See? If you don't vote for me, then THOSE OTHER GUYS will be in charge!
Feh. Been listening to that shit for years and all I've got to show for it is disappointment.
Andy K @ 75:
So don't you worry your widdle head about the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Forget about threats to Iran. There's more important things to worry about?
Oh, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
But government is slow to change, huh?
Two problems: Bush supporters only watch news(!) programs that pander to Bush. They won't explain the truth about the impact of the Webb Amendment; they will simply avoid that or make up some blatantly obvious lie about it while they spin the rest of the story. The second and most harmful problem is that we cannot count on the Democrats in our government to change anything. They have their reasons, mostly I suspect comes from a lack of character.
nincompoop @71-
"So what you are saying is they compromised to give the surge a chance."
No, I'm sayin' they gave the sonnuvabitch President and his party enough rope to hang themselves.
I don't know where you live, but I live in a heavily conservative area of Michigan, and the people around me are gettin' sicker of Bushco's shit every day. Only the fuckin' ditto-heads are still pointin' at the Democrats about the war. They fuckin' know where the blame lies.
mudshark @ 79:
You're wrong, it did not contribute. The election was STOLEN.
Recently, Florida officials stated that they were ordered to choose the poorest quality ballots they could find, and to misregister the chads. So the fraud was quite general.
Saying people shouldn't vote third party is absurd in a democracy. I agree it is often counterproductive, but someone like Nader has every right to run, and I believe Nader ALSO had the election stolen from him. I believe that Greens got the 5% of the vote they needed to become a recognized national party.
1) If you vote for third party candidates, make sure you're not electing a Republican instead.
2) If you elect a third party candidate, realize that he/she will have to caucus with the Dems anyhow.
Don't bash third parties. We need instant runoff voting to preserve our votes.
But PLEASE NOTE, we do NOT have an overtly stated right to vote for President. We need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to make that right overt. Bush v. Gore was decided on the lack of that overt statement, and had we that right overtly, Bushco would have failed to take office.
http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingRightsFAQ.htm
Paul in LA @ 80:
Sorry. It's not. Everyone who voted for
1. Iraq War
2. Patriot Act
3. Military Commissions Act
does not belong in our government. They have zero credibility and should not be allowed anywhere near a seat of power.
Paul in LA @ 85:
I understand your point...and agree..but...What was the total of the votes for Nader?....just askin.
I'm waiting for the Democrats to end the war. I'm waiting for the Democrats to do anything but whine and back down. I will be about 80 by then...
nincompoop @ 82:
Only when ya refuse to participate- which is what Jason S is talkin' about.
Oh, puhleez. The Dems will put together a bill. The President will veto it. The Dems will cave.
They DON'T HAVE THE BALLS to stand up and do what's right. They should simply send it back - again and again. IF the gov't goes copletely bankrupt. IF the trains don't run - it doesn't matter. The War Must End. NOW. But the Dems don't have the balls. They don't. Bush does. He's a stubborn idiot. He'll sit there and veto until the cows come home. Is it irresistible force meeting the unmoveable object? No. Eventually someone will blink, and I predict it will be the Democrats. As usual. It's part of being "liberal" - being reasonable and having a heart - and they haven't learned the lesson of tough love. Bush isn't and doesn't and doesn't care.
You heard it hear first. Sort of.
Andy K @ 84:
So it's politics. They did it for future political reasons?
How many soldiers died during the surge? (about 600)
But at least the Democrats are in a better position for 08, right?
Oh, no because they funded the surge Congresses approval ratings are in the toilet.
Uh, I live in fucking Tennessee. Fred Thompson country.
Plenty of stickers, but these assholes couldn't tell me one of ole Fred's policy positions.
JasonS @ 81:
For you, it's a monolith. The Dem party, like America, is a dog with two eyes and a tail.
NEVERMIND that the progressive wing of the Dem party had given you the benefits of what socialism we have. It didn't come from Republicans -- any of it. And although LBJ was a DINO, if you put LBJ in with the Republicans, they are responsible for almost all of these hateful overseas warcrimes.
Disaffiliated leftists bend the facts so often it isn't even funny any more.
And, btw, Bill Clinton actually believed in welfare reform. He wanted to pass that bill. Just because he has D after his name doesn't mean he represents the best part of our caucus. We opposed him on NAFTA and came within one vote of stopping CAFTA (after R left the vote open for three hours while they hammered heads).
Actually DO something in politics, and you would know this. Backbiting the Dems en masse is not an accomplishment. It's ignorance.
nincompoop @ 91:
Great! Who is your Representative?
Oy, I gotta go, hardcore diehard Democrats.
Don't worry. The party still loves you. It just does this because you don't listen, ok?
GNA!
Paul in LA @ 93:
Jim Cooper.
He voted against the Iraq War, god bless him. But is now giving the BS excuses like the rest of the Dem Party.
Cause, heh, Lamar and Corker are not exactly Beacons of Change in the US Congress.
Maybe your Representative will save your from being BLAMED for Dems not stopping the Iraq genocide. We can forgive your Senators, but the Representative is up every two years, and you probably have work to do.
>if you don’t vote or vote 3rd party and the Repubs win….don’t bitch because you had your chance to change
I'm comfortable voting my conscience. Sometimes my conscience tells me that stopping the Republicans is worth voting AD (Any Democrat.)
I've voted that way most of my life and I now I see that the Dems are taking that shit for granted.
So, no, I won't bitch if the Republicans benefit from my lack of support of their bogus "opposition."
I won't lose any sleep knowing I voted for a candidate whose words AND deeds most reflect my values and standards.
And I sleep pretty good at night knowing I never voted for Joe Lieberman and I never will.
JasonS @ 81:
well well well.....showing you true colors now aren't you Jason....more subterfuge from a concern troll....Nafta was Reagans baby...when he gave amnysty to the 3 mill illegal aliens...Bush 1 fine tuned it and yes BC signed it...and boosh is pushing Cafta...now for the welfare reform.....I don't recall BC vetoing it....But I believe BC had his own welfare reform in the works already....somewhat of a comprimise you might say......but the choice is yours Jason...vote or don't vote....or maybe get into politics and work at changing the future......
nincompoop @ 96: "Jim Cooper. He voted against the Iraq War, god bless him. But is now giving the BS excuses like the rest of the Dem Party."
Cooper IS A BLUE DOG. Good for him voting against the IR.
But he IS a part of the problem.
Oh yes, I agree whole heartedly with that scenario.
And yes, let the Republicans filibuster. I'd love to see John Boehner in a crying whisky drunk again.
I guess the tv news networks will never learn to have the tape ready to roll when they refer to previous statements and interviews that were taped. McCain, Cheney and other Republicans will just keep lying in this manner.
The segment on MTP also featured a long debate between McCain and Kerry regarding Iraq. I thought that Kerry totally pwned McCain here. Other than his dismal failure to defend himself against the Swift Boaters, Kerry is a very effective debater with strong command of the facts and an articulate way to include them in his arguments.
nincompoop @ 86:
Thanks for you opinion. In my opinion, the politicians who voted for the war are no worse than those citizens who believed that it was a good idea or did not simply say that it was wrong in the first place. I will admit that whether or not a politician voted for the war or not will have some bearing on my future votes but I will put that in context with the other important issues.
> Only when ya refuse to participate- which is what Jason S is talkin’ about.
The hell I am. The fucking hell I am.
Since when does participation in democracy boil down to supporting one of the two major parties?
I participate. I vote. I study the issues and vote for the candidate who most supports what I believe in.
I don't just vote red or blue because the TV tells me nothing else is "serious."
Voting for a major party candidate is just throwing your vote away...going along with a massive crowd.
Your individual vote means more when you lend it to an independent or a third party, because it has more impact on those issues.
No third party will take a dominant position in the forseeable future. Winning isn't everything, contrary to what the Roves and Carvilles would have you believe.
If the Dems know the Nader vote is important to them, then maybe...MAYBE...they'll listen. If the Republicans lose many votes to the Libertarians then maybe...MAYBE...they'll listen.
But as long as we continue slogging along blindly voting 'D' or 'R' as though we're fucking sports fans or something, they'll never get the idea that they need to change anything.
Which is not to say you shouldn't vote Democratic or Republican, if that's what your conscience tells you. But you should do it ONLY because it's what your conscience tells you.
I've noticed a really disturbing trend among Democrats to claim that any of us who would DARE vote any other way are somehow deluded.
Sad. Sad what we've come to. Sad what we've let them turn us into.
Here's a good summary of Cooper's 110th votes, which shows some of the problems with Blue Dog -bashing.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c000754/key-votes/
I don't imagine you voted for Fred Thompson?
Retired Navy @ 103: In my opinion, the politicians who voted for the war..."
The Iraq Resolution was not an approval for the genocide in Iraq.
Bush lied to Congress, lied to the American people, and has committed every crime he could. The Iraq Resolution was not followed, anyhow. It required Bush to make specific presentation to the Congress BEFORE taking major military action, which he entirely failed to do.
> well well well…..showing you true colors now aren’t you Jason….more subterfuge from a concern troll
All right, yes, fine, I must be a troll with a hidden agenda if I don't get in lock step behind our masters.
We elected Democrats to do a job. They're not doing that job. They've lost my support. When they start doing the job, they'll get it back.
If that makes me a troll, then fine, badge accepted.
JasonS @ 104:
It's a CAUCUS GOVERNMENT.
You vote, study, all that -- how many representatives do you have in your caucus?
ZERO.
Will you be accomplishing anything soon? Nope.
JasonS @ 107: "We elected Democrats to do a job."
The usual, oft-stated, NONSENSE.
Did you elect a new Democrat in 2006? Even one?
No. Your district, your state, voted Dem in the hopes that they could, after two Congresses of bullshit, put some order back into the system Bushco trashed, with the entire help of the R party.
Name any Dem you voted in 2006 'to do a job' (get the US out of Iraq). Name one.
Paul in LA @ 108:
Paul you were right.....Nader..2,882,955...Boosh...50,456,002...Gore...50,999,897........credit where credit is due Paul.........You were right.
Andy K @ 1:
yep.
and they failed us then, and they will surely fail us now.
its only been 5mos.
I don't get your joke, mudshark.
Those "vote" totals from Florida are nonsense. The election should have been VOIDED.
No one knows how many votes Nader got, or Gore, but we do know that Gore won the popular vote, and I believe Nader got 5% (nationwide).
Well, prayse Jay-sus, someone has finally figgered it out. Let's just hope that the Dum-O-cratic leadership can get their stubby arms around it! And with all doo respeckt, I'm on their side! But if they don't pull their heads out of their Arses sometime soon, I'll be heading to Canada or Sweden!
Are ALL democrats dipsh*ts??? Come on, dems, grow some ba11s!!! You must have more ba11s than Larry Craig, don't you? Or are the interlocutors right when they say that you really don't want to end the war...
So, how's YOUR stock portfolio? Oil? Halliburton? Blackwater? (at least until today) Are you doing peachy-keen while America forecloses? Yeah, Bi7ch! That's the Amurucun way! You little people just shaddup and attend to my pedicure... When will they run on the banks in Uh-mehr-uh-cuh? Or are we too civilised/uninformed to pay attention like they could be doing in Britain...
Oh, look! A chicken! And look at that cute puppy! Golly, isn't life great? What? Are you talking about all that bad stuff again? Don't you ever look on the bright side? You're so negative! Look at the pretty rainbow! And the kitty! Sooooo cute...
Kulshan, it's been nine months. Started on Jan 4.
> Will you be accomplishing anything soon? Nope.
Well, I must really be a Democrat then.
There are plenty of places in this world where multi-party democracy works, along with issues-based caucuses instead of party-loyalty based caucuses.
Look, this knee-jerk two-party-ism has only one eventual end: single party rule.
Either one party will dominate the other, as with Karl Rove's vision, or the two parties will stake out roughly equal territories and broker a power-sharing agreement.
And no, I don't have a solution. I don't have an answer. I can't fix it. I may accomplish nothing.
But that doesn't mean I'm just gonna roll over and take it. That's what makes me NOT a Democrat.
> It’s a CAUCUS GOVERNMENT.
Remind me where that is in the Constitution again?
Paul in LA @ 109:
actually ending the Occupation of Iraq was the entire platform for every Dem in the country. thats all they campaigned on.
Paul in LA @ 114:
wtf are you ranting about??
what started 9 mos ago?? the surge??
i wasnt talking about the surge , I was talking about the May appropriations bill Einstein.
learn to count.
and follow a conversation.
>actually ending the Occupation of Iraq was the entire platform for every Dem in the country. thats all they campaigned on.
Exactly. That was a solid benchmark that they have failed to make the good progress against.
It's like the Christian Right and the Republicans. The Republicans usually push one or two mouth-breathing "put the ten commandments on postage stamp" initiatives to quiet those guys down and then they laugh about them behind their backs.
When fundies get upset about this, the loyal among them say, "yeah, but imagine if the DEMOCRATS were in power?"
And we smugly sit back and say "look at those fundies...the bushies make fun of them! they're so STOOOPID for supporting Republicans!"
No more fear. Time for us to cast off this red state/blue state bullshit and create a purple coalition. We'll have differences, but there is a broad consensus now that is not being served.
70% of this country opposes what EVERYONE in power is doing. How can that possibly be sustainable?
JasonS @ 115: "There are plenty of places in this world where multi-party democracy works"
Sure, in parliamentary systems. This isn't a parliamentary system.
"Look, this knee-jerk two-party-ism has only one eventual end: single party rule."
Only in a coup like the present one. Otherwise, there has been a general good-faith alternation.
"It’s a CAUCUS GOVERNMENT." Remind me where that is in the Constitution again?
It's right after the impeachment power WHICH HAS NEVER WORKED because the political parties the Founders feared and despised rose within twenty years to make a mockery of that power.
It's a caucus gov't. The point is: What you accomplish depends on how many votes you have, minus those votes which are DINO (in our case) and only vote with the caucus sometimes.
So voting third party where that elects a Republican is screwing yourself by weakening the caucus. And the stronger the caucus, the more things we can get done.
Of course, if you buy into the monolithic model of the disaffiliated leftists, then you don't trust either party at all, and think they are the same party with different labels. At that point, you will certainly not accomplish anything governmentally, with your caucus of Zero.
kulshan @ 117:
Thanks for the compliment.
JasonS @ 118:
Prove it. Name one candidate in your area who ran on that platform who wasn't already on board with that goal. I live in California, and since my Representative, Diane Watson, is already in the Out of Iraq Caucus, I couldn't vote for her (again) on her anti-Iraq invasion basis, something she has opposed from the very start of this disaster, along with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Boxer.
Senator Feinstein, who is on the Bushco side, won by landslide in California in 2006's questionably-legal election. So in that regard I failed in my opposition.
The funny thing is that disaffiliated leftists do not seem to be able to distinguish campaigning from actual political ability to accomplish things.
Case in point: Rep. Kucinich, who was impeaching Cheney for all of us a few months ago. All the right talk, producing NOTHING. So most saavy people don't believe campaigners, and look to understand the Congress itself, and what is likely possible.
And in that context, NO one will be removing troops from Iraq until there is political power to do so. Bashing the Dems does not produce that power -- the reverse. You ought to be bashing the Blue Dogs, and the equivalent Senators. THAT might accomplish something.
> At that point, you will certainly not accomplish anything governmentally, with your caucus of Zero.
So, what power do we have then? If our choice is to either support one of the two major parties or be completely ineffectual, then we are slaves to whatever terms of the debate they decide to set.
I don't see the parties as indistinguishable. But I do see that it is in BOTH their best interests to narrow the political conversation in this country to areas they feel safe campaigning on.
The role of third parties and independents in this situation is not to create a competing caucus, but to provide a unified voice to a sub-caucus.
Democrats, for example, know that many will bolt to the Green party of they lose their way. Likewise, Republicans are in danger of losing votes to the Libertarians.
Libertarians and Greens will never be majority parties, but they CAN influence the debate, they CAN make issues stick, and they CAN give voters a choice to put their support behind something other than that which the bobble-heads have deemed "serious" or "important."
That's what third parties can accomplish...they can influence the framing.
And right now, if you haven't noticed, it's the framing of this debate that is maddeningly off course.
"Preciptious withdrawl" "the surge is working" "measured redeployment" "benchmarks"
It seems like every argument is one form or another of delusion, on both sides.
It might not work out that way, but it's worth a shot. Certainly worth more of a shot than throwing my hat in to one of the two big piles.
My one vote won't change California's electoral politics. It won't get Bush elected. I voted Nader in 2000, but if California had been even CLOSE to being in play, I wouldn't have.
Why? Not because I particularly care for that egomaniac, but because he was on the Green ticket. It was more worth it to me to give the Greens some marginal chance of qualifying for future ballots than to be one among millions giving my state to Gore.
Nowadays, I sleep pretty well at night knowing I never voted for Joe Lieberman.
David Obey needs to do his job and stop the war
Paul in LA @ 80:
THIS we can agree on Paul. Edwards is the only candidate with a snowball's chance in hell of winning who even pretends to populism.
As far as voting for third parties, etc - if you are gonna waste your vote, why bother to turn out? Virtually every conservative (Dem or Rethug) is gonna have a more progressive primary challenger. Work like hell to get that person elected. Also, pick a progressive challenger somewhere that you think has a chance to win and send them some cash, give em some time or both. Don't just piss and moan about the dark, light a candle.
It's time to convince Reid that Jim Webb's legislation is the ticket in the defense appropriation. Can it be done? Only God knows. I think there is little hope that the Dems have enough strength to pull it off.
> I think there is little hope that the Dems have enough strength to pull it off.
The Webb amendment (or an equivalent) is make-or-break for me. If they can't make this work, they can't (or won't) make anything work.
It defies all usual arguments:
1) It supports the troops. How better to capitalize on the success of the surge than to relieve our brave troops?
2) It's not "micro-managing" the war...it's macro-managing, which Congress is constitutionally obligated to do. It's not about how many brigades go where with what mission. It's a general policy for the whole military...and a humane one at that.
3) It's pro-family. On the one hand, we say fathers are important to families. On the other hand, if dad is deployed to Iraq for six or seven years, fear not: we've got a cardboard cutout for ya!
The only problem is that they're not making it Bush's idea.
Make it Bush's idea. For the love of God, let him think of it.
nonny mouse @ 28:
Replace them with those democrats who will listen to their constituents and have a backbone.
If you think the Dems are going to stand up to the Republicans, I have to ask, where have you been recently?
These guys are so scared to look weak, that they are simply showing how weak they are.
Just keep passing the legislation the Republicans want... that is what they will keep doing.
These gutless cowards will blow it. They are looking for any excuses they can to blow it. As a party controlled by corporatist operatives, blowing it is their cover.
JasonS @ 122:
Have a chat with Howard Dean. He doesn't have that same antagonism. He understands the caucus gov't, and that independents and third partiers also will caucus with us, when we are in the right, as we certainly intend to be.
Please read #85. I am not against third parties. When the 2004 election was stolen in Ohio, I worked very hard to convince Democrats to donate to the Greens election challenge, and was quite pleased when Senator Kerry joined their challenge. But until the third parties can produce a representative, its just symbolic voting, so the person can sleep at night, secure in a sense of purity which is ENTIRELY SPURIOUS.
We need to make progress. I support instant runoff voting, the best way to get third parties into ACTUAL SEATS in the government. I don't think that threatens the Democratic party, but then again, I am aligned to the Progressive Wing, and not to the DINOs, so as long as the party moves toward the Progressive dimension, then I'm OK with third party inclusion.
What has been stimulated, though, is not a lot of liberal third parties. Rather, what we will see is a PROFUSION of half-assed former-Republican/Libertarian/Patriot party bullshit. It's a flood, and it's coming. People actually considering voting for Ron Paul, while ignoring the real danger of his RETROGRESSIVE policies, and the like. So if third party options is your thing, you are going to see YOUR votes going to very poorly founded parties GALORE.
Democrats aren't really your problem.
JasonS @ 122:
Well, the hegemony of political discussion is a true fact. Third parties could open that up some, but it's a double-edged sword.
We need to make progress. I support instant runoff voting, the best way to get third parties into ACTUAL SEATS in the government. I don't think that threatens the Democratic party, but then again, I am aligned to the Progressive Wing, and not to the DINOs, so as long as the party moves toward the Progressive dimension, then I'm OK with third party inclusion.
What has been stimulated, though, is not a lot of liberal third parties. Rather, what we will see is a PROFUSION of half-assed former-Republican/Libertarian/Patriot party bullshit. It's a flood, and it's coming. People actually considering voting for Ron Paul, while ignoring the real danger of his RETROGRESSIVE policies, and the like. So if third party options is your thing, you are going to see YOUR votes going to very poorly founded parties GALORE.
Democrats aren't really your problem.
Andy K @ 1:
It's familiar because this is what everyone with a modicum of intelligence knows would happen if the dems were interested in stopping this war. They could end this tomorrow by approving one appropriations bill for the $10Bn it would take to fly everyone out of Iraq. Done. No more war. That's a dream, and I know is not realistic at all.
So what is the English word for a person who espouses one point of view and then performs actions that are in direct contradiction to the goals of that view? Where I come from we call them fucking liars, or politicians for short.
Paul in LA @ 112:
Sorry about that Paul in LA.....must of been a bad case of cerebral flatulence..........but hey I think you did great up there....
09/17/07 Countdown, at 6:00 pm (?) the Pentagon released a report that the violance in Iragi is at 2002 levels. Why isn't this discussed??
y'know who has been saying that 'call for cloture votes EVERY DAY until we get what we want' thing the whole time? MIKE GRAVEL. LOL
Ppl have called him crazy, called him a dreamer, a vapid idealist. but now all of a sudden he's right, because someone else said it? Know who else has been saying this shit for years? What both sides of the aisle agree to be one of the foremost minds on the state of politics AND human affairs, Noam Chomsky. who here actually cared enough to listen to him, though? *silence*
and then, someone else finally gets a clue and mentions the same thing - a happy, shiny face of the media - you all sit back in amazement saying 'yeah, that's a great idea!'
Why is it that people are so willing to point out the flaws of others (like blindly following media pundits or calling both sides of the -=established=- aisle equally corrupt), but never wish to see how they have the same failings and tendencies? I have an idea: stop arguing 'talking points' of any kind, altogether, and spend your next day off fully researching for yourself, by yourself, all the questions you believe are unanswered or seem too good to be true. There are very simple ties from one problem to the next: from governmental law to big corporate interests, from democrats to republicans, from the FCC to the Pharmaceutical industry.... YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY, OR EVEN PAYING ATTENTION TO IT. Even the most far-sighted among you only seem to have a capacity for memory that stretches back a few years. Hows about talking to sociologists and anthropologists who have been tracking the dynastic actions of our country's leaders for generations, asking them what their general perspective is on the past 100 years? You might find the answers shocking... not because they will tell you little details in the grand scope of time such as a single war, or singlular subjects such as taxes, or lobbies, or FCC violations, or the Pharmaceutical explosion of the past 50 years (which most people on meds now deem is paramount to their survival, when really most of those meds do nothing to cure, only sedate in some fashion); but because they will throw in your faces the shocking truth that you have not been lied to all that convincingly, you are just lazy in defending your own ideals and -=prefer=- some form of enslavement to quell your overwhelming need for instant gratification; asleep at the wheel. And the worst part is that these flaws come across all party lines, racial lines, religious lines, family ties, national boundaries, etc.
In short: your own selfishness and subsequent blindness to all things you deem not to concern you until it inconveniences your rights to embalm yourselves slowly, has brought this upon everyone... and with a single untied breath, ONE GASP OF TRUE FREEDOM, you could have at any point and still could right now, fix all the problems. truly, that simple. no arguing, it IS that simple.
The sins of the father have only so much stretch before they BECOME the sins of the sons. Try swallowing your pride and not only realizing that, but saying it out loud to other people (because you know it is true, all semantics aside). Remind your neighbors of this, bluntly, out loud. who cares if they get angry or try to push you aside? at least you said it and cleared your conscience. at least you actually DID SOMETHING MEANINGFUL.
Wise_Fool @ 135:
everybody should read this....all of it...
Comments are closed on this entry