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.
great diary and great reasoning, Boo.
Is there any other step available than refusing to fund the war?
As you said, it is now obvious that the Republicans are going “all in” with the President. Many of us suspected months ago that would be the case come “Magic September”.
What “drastic steps” are in the Dem arsenal right now? And do we assume at this point that we have to take on tactics with a greater risk factor in order to have a chance at success?
I’m curious about everyones thoughts.
They could decide to hold up all other business until they can get an up or down vote on the Webb amendment, or some other piece that they have 50+ votes for.
Downside: it will greatly enhance the GOP’s leverage in the appropriations process by putting everything into continuing resolutions (a de facto reduction in government services).
They could simply refuse to pass a supplemental unless they can get up or down votes on all their measures.
Downside: forcing an end to the war without an bipartisan support and without a systemic plan is dangerous both in reality and politically.
Kagro makes the argument that with the current agreed-to 60 vote structure we will never know whether the President is willing to veto an appropriation bill or if the Republicans would ever actually filibuster the Webb Amendment because not a single Democrat has raised a finger to signal an objection to a unanimous consent request. They have just assumed the Republicans will make good on any threat so they are not willing to take the risk.
Do they not, at some point, have to take a chance on doing something?
I would like to think that there is a method to this madness and Harry Reid has a larger plan but how long do you play defense on this? If there was an action which had no downside then it would have been taken long ago, but I’m still right where I was at months ago with the “Shit or get off the pot” view. Caution is, or can be, a good thing. Chronic uncertainty is quite another animal altogether.
His plan failed yesterday.
That’s what I was afraid of.
Now I’m really bummed.
Somehow i think the word “plan” means something different than you think it does.
I have yet to see any “planning” from ANY of these people.
I think that is the frustrating part to me, Brendan. Using all my powers of observation, reasoning, logic and deduction I still cannot glean any semblance of a “plan” in any of this. I read a lot of speculation, prognostication and plain old fashioned guessing as to what they’re doing, but there still doesn’t seem to be any “there” there, if you know what I mean. Most plans follow some kind of logical progression and for the life of me, I just cannot see it.
It is a total fallacy to argue that the Congress can end the war with any measure short of actual impeachment, and we do not have enough votes in the Senate to convict.
There is noticing to indicate that George W. Bush cares a whit for the will of the people or the will of Congress. Nor do I believe that our president cares about the troops, their safety or their well-being. Yet any strategy for bringing the troops home without impeachment required that Bush be forced to order a withdrawal.
If we stop funding today, then Bush will order the army to stay in Iraq until they run out of money. Then he will ask congress to give him money again. I would not be surprised if Bush is arrogant and uncaring enough that he would order our soldiers to go on patrol without food or bullets.
Last time we had this kind of showdown is when Teddy Roosevelt sailed the Great White Fleet around the world against the wishes of Congress. He asked for money to sail them home when the fleet was on the other side of the globe.
I agree that primaries against congresscritters with no respect for the will of the people or especially for our rights as citizens are a good strategy, but I am getting tired of the canard that congress can bring the troops home while Bush is still president.
I don’t where you get this crap.
Bush isn’t going to tell them to go on patrol without food and bullets and he really would get impeached if he tried.
He might be able to move some money around and keep the troops going for a little while, but he will ultimately have to order a withdrawal.
“Bush isn’t going to tell them to go on patrol without food and bullets and he really would get impeached if he tried.”
I’m not so sure about that, given how the GOP continues to move lockstep behind Bush. They’d actually have to, you know, VOTE against him, and they’ve been very well trained not to. And the media would be happy to play along by saying that the Democrats were starving the troops with their actions.
I get this crap by realizing that Bush is not a rational actor in this potential showdown. I don’t believe that he cares anything about the troops. Perhaps he wouldn’t literally order them to go on patrol, but I really doubt he would order them to come home just because they had no money.
I am not saying that we should give up, I am just saying that I am tired, and that I don’t think that withholding funding will end the war. The Republicans are to blame for the war. So are a few neo-conservative democrats and one independent and they should have opponents to their re-election who believe in the constitution.
I am also in favour of shutting down the Senate until we can get a vote on the Webb amendment, I think it is both morally and politically the right thing to do. If the Republicans are afraid to let our troops come home to rest, that is their problem. If it is more important that our soldiers do not have time home with their families than that they have pay that is their problem. Make them vote make him veto.
Why do you think I send out such inflammatory FDL bulletins? And why do you think DL is telling me to STOP sending out such inflammatory bulletins?
fuck ’em. these people are not our friends: they are our servants, and it’s high time they were treated as such.
I don’t need any of these sonsofbitches, and I’m happy to fire the whole lot of them.
Is DL really telling you to lighten up on your email content?
What do they think we are a bunch of Drinking Centrists? Or perhaps Drinking Lightly and Cowardly? Your e-mails are generally more amusing than their laughing liberally videos.
They are taking themselves too seriously.
yes, they told me to lighten up in an email titled “a very important message about your last listserv message”:
“I’m writing in regards to your most recent message to your mailing list. I know you didn’t mean any harm, but for our own legal protection we need to be very, very careful about directing our members to contact their elected officials on specific pieces of legislation.
While it’s fine to provide information about a given issue, our LLC status makes it very much prohibited for us to so directly advocate that our members urge support or lack of support for a specific piece of legislation; we need to be very careful not to put DL National in jeopardy by flirting with these legal issues. I understand this can be very confusing, if you have any questions please let me know and I’m happy to set up a phone call.
However, and perhaps even more importantly, a lot of people get involved with us because they don’t want someone telling them what to do and how to think. So beyond election law, philosophically we want to avoid urging people to ally themselves in a particular way, even on issues which we might personally feel are progressive cornerstones.
Thanks for your cooperation. I know it is not your intention to get DL National in a sticky situation.”
While I have never gotten one single email from a member of our DL chapter criticizing my calls to action, they do have a point about adovcacy.
Instead, I’m just going to spew about whatever issue I think needs attention, and then link directly to the websites for our Glorious and Serious Senators and Representatives Who Know So Much More Than We Could Ever Know About Life, the Universe, and Everything. that way members will get the hint and I’ll “avoid urging people to ally themselves in a particular way, even on issues which we might personally feel are progressive cornerstones”.
I realize printing a personal email is a violation of netiquette, but the times we live in don’t lend themselves to good manners. Well behaved people seldom make history.
As a member of your listerserve community, I humbly request that you include e-mail and phone number for our Senators and relevant representatives in the footer of your e-mails, just for quick reference. If it isn’t legal for you to actually ask us to call then don’t ask, but please keep us informed about that is getting your goat when you e-mail us, ‘specially if you can make us laugh.
Most of us know that you are a crazy wackjob who doesn’t really represent the DL hierarchy anyway. If you advocate for something I don’t care about, don’t worry, I’ll happily ignore you.
thanks Luam!
But I look forward to your weekly vitriolic missives! We get enough PC-don’t-rock-the-boat-keep-your-powder-dry crap from our reps…
boxer-0
gop—1
The Democratic Party is DEAD!
I sure hope they get primaried. the moveon vote was disgraceful. needless and disgraceful.
the democrats just pissed off a lot of people.