The Roman Senate existed in some form from the mythical founding of Rome all the way until 580 CE. But, after Augustus established the Empire, the Senate became little more than an influential debating society. And that is what our own Senate, and House, have now become when it comes to the war in Iraq. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01) is both a member of the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus. But he’s pissed off that activists are discussing running primaries against Bush Dog democrats.
Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said the anti-war groups’ threat, coupled with pressure within the House Democratic Caucus to settle for nothing less than mandating a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, amounts to a “recapitulation of the Inquisition.’’
Abercrombie, who with John Tanner, D-Tenn., is lobbying Democratic leaders to permit a vote on their proposal requiring Bush to devise a plan for withdrawal but without setting withdrawal deadlines, called any effort to squelch debate within the caucus “very ill-considered.”
John Tanner is a founder of the Blue Dog caucus. Abercrombie is saying that we should allow the Blue Dogs to continue to debate the wisdom of pulling out of Iraq. How long shall we debate it?
Consider this:
In the aftermath of [yesterday’s] votes, White House supporters appeared emboldened.
“It means that Congress will not interfere in the foreseeable future” in the war, said Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with Democrats but sides with Bush on the war.
Here’s the thing. We all know that the Democrats can end the war if they really want to. They can simply refuse to approve any more money for the war. They can make the GOP back up their filibusters by actually standing up there for days. But there are political risks to doing that, and the Dems cannot muster enough unanimity to agree on such a strategy. They have asked us to be patient while they pursue a strategy of driving a wedge between the president and his congressional allies. Well…yesterday we achieved one less vote (on the Webb amendment) in the Senate than we did in July. Clearly, Lieberman is correct. The strategy has not worked.
If the Republicans will not move, we have little alternative to seeing what we can do to get the Democrats to move. This may play into the Republicans’ hands.
But Republican leaders are gleeful. “I just sit on the side and have a big grin on my face,’’ said Tom Cole, R-Okla., head of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Cole pointed to criticism of Democrats by the anti-war group MoveOn.org, which has become a GOP target since it sponsored an advertisement that Republicans denounced as an over-the-top attack on Iraq commander Gen. David H. Petraeus. “This is a constituent group that thinks it is the Democratic Party, and they’re madder at the Democrats than they are at us,’’ Cole said.
But the Democrats are wrong to be overly frightened, and the Republicans are foolish to gloat. Only two or three Democrats are likely to face serious primary challenges. The Netroots simply doesn’t have the power to do more.
We have thirteen months until the next election. And there is simply no way that the anti-war movement can or will settle for a strategy that says we did everything we could do…let the elections sort it out.
“It’s perfectly legitimate for constituents to express disappointment. But strategically it’s a mistake to go after those Democrats,’’ said Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who says Congress should not approve more war funding without Bush’s agreement to withdraw American forces from Iraq next year.
McGovern said anti-war forces should target their efforts elsewhere.
“I think everybody’s fire should be aimed at Republicans,’’ he said. “What has screwed everything up is that Republicans, with near-total unison, have stayed with the president on the war.’’
The problem with this reasoning is that we don’t have any say or any control over what the Republicans do. We’ve tried to pressure them and it did not work. The only option left is to pressure Democrats to take more drastic steps to end the war.