Author: fairleft

1. Shareholders are not owners

First of all, let's dispose of a myth: shareholders are not owners and do not want to be owners of the corporations they invest in. Ownership would necessarily involve liability for corporate wrongs committed against society and individuals. And, since shareholders do not want that liability and have opted to invest in entities (corporations) that don't convey that liability to their investors, such investors are not 'owners'. Investors who want to be real owners have the option of buying into partnerships or other business entities where the owners are legally and financially responsible for harms those entities commit.

A corporation is a business form invented and chartered by government out of the belief that such entities will benefit society. If the benefit is not there, then government obviously should revoke the corporate charters it has issued. Or, instead of that drastic move, it should modify corporations so that they think and act in more socially beneficial ways. My point is always that government must design a corporate governance regime that works well, and then re-design it based on experience to make it work even better.
2. Go beyond the all-or-nothing simplicities

Designing how corporate boards would be constituted would be hard, trial-and-error work. But, right off the bat you wouldn't want one group of 'stakeholders' — whether that is creditors, local or state government, employees, managers or shareholdrs — to have all formal power within the corporation.

We at least know that all power to the shareholders (the dominant libertarian/mainstream economic rage) works badly for society as a whole, as we can see by comparing per capita US economic data from the post-war (1946 to 1973) and 'monetarist' (1979 and forward) eras, making sure to note also the severe increase in inequality since the mid-70s. But all or nearly all power to the workers also works badly for society as a whole, learning from the limited experience we've had with it in Yugoslavia. The same for economic systems in which creditors have excessive power over business entities, the economic decision-makers becomes too cautious. And as for all power to government, we can see that failed in most economic sectors (but worked well in health care) in the Soviet Union and other 'socialist' countries.

To detail one of the above examples further… Employee power pushes a corporation to distribute wealth to the employees. Great, because a strong economy is in part founded on a strong _demand_ side. But all power to employees and not enough corporate wealth is distributed to one source of capital, shareholders. Too much employee power means corporate wealth may not be managed responsibly and with reasonable caution, and debts to creditors paid off. Excessive employee power also means the corporation is less interested than the government would want it to be in creating new employment. Similar problems, of course, would arise from excessive creditor power, shareholder power, and government power within a corporation.

3. Redesign corporations' governance, their ‘brains’

So, are we gonna stay stuck in the black & white simplicities forever (All Power to the Shareholders! All Power to the Workers!)? Or, will we move on to a human and complex solution for how we as a society should best handle the 'ownership' of our economy?

I think that the ideal power distribution within a corporation — i.e., on the corporate board of directors — will involve a balance of power among shareholders, employees (all employees, not just 'workers'), creditors and (local, regional, and national) government. Governments (this is not a libertarian project!) need to design corporate governance so it works best for society. That will necessarily be a trial-and-error effort, they won't get the form perfectly balanced the first time they try, and they likely will find that different balances of internal corporate power work better in different industries.

And governments are free to do the above without stepping on the rights of anyone, since as I've clarified shareholders are _not_ owners and therefore the guardians of corporations and how corporations should be governed. No, 'we the people' can decide such matters, from the fact that corporations are institutions that exist only with a corporate charter provided by government. Governments elected by you and me are free to modify that corporate charter. And shareholders are free to go along with the new rules, start up their own private firms, and/or take their money elsewhere and invest in other business forms such as partnerships where investors really are owners.

(By the way) it should be obvious but I am not a socialist but a social democrat. If we had a democratic system that was truly representative of the people then I trust its leaders would move forward to a complex solution to the benefits and costs the corporation imposes on society. The education systems might be 'socialist' or government-operated, and the health care system might be operated as a public utility with strong government oversight, but I think most of the economy would end up being operated by society-friendly corporations with newly installed 'brains' (a useful way of thinking about corporate boards).

The map above is just a thought experiment, and I hope it’s accepted in that spirit. Just imagine the U.S. and all its citizens beamed up to the heaven of their choice, and then the ‘lower 48’ sinking into the sea.  . . .

What kind of world would we then have? Would it be a better one, more or less? I’m afraid to say so but my answer would be yes. The problem is our crusading neoconservative/neoliberal imperialism, self-righteously championed by both our political parties and deep in our political bones. We have a lot of work to do before my answer would change.

Happy Fourth of July, and props to the hard-working and courageous people who made this a great country, an inspiration to freedom loving people from Touissant Loverture to Ho Chi Minh.

But I think we need to do a little thinking and thought-experimenting before we get back to the hard work of changing things.

P.S. Here are a couple of interesting things from Wikipedia on the Declaration of Independence,  the first a contemporary criticism and the second a key revision:

We hold (they say) these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal. In what are they created equal? Is it in size, understanding, figure, moral or civil accomplishments, or situation of life? Every plough-man knows that they are not created equal in any of these….That every man hath an unalienable right to liberty; and here the words, as it happens, are not nonsense, but they are not true: slaves there are in America, and where there are slaves, there liberty is alienated.

anonymous, August 1776, The Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. 46, pp. 403-404

Jefferson’s original draft included a denunciation of the slave trade (“He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”), which was later edited out by Congress…

[Also at my left wing.]

With the way they f&%#cked up and funded the Iraq occupation a couple weeks ago, it’s hard to have anything to do with the Democrats these days. But an e-mail from Progressive Democrats of America this morning tells me that (inmyhumbleopinion) there are at least a few real progressive Democrats out there.

The e-mail — from Olive Tree Democrats, “A project of Progressive Democrats of America” —  is mainly about the June 11 Lobby Day for Israeli/Palestinian Peace and End to Occupation. But it also reminds us of the June 10 march and of a terrible anniversary (emphasis added throughout):

On June 10 and 11, people around the world are joining together in a Day of Action to mark the 40th year of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. …

Tens of thousands will march in Washington D.C. on June 10, and hundreds of activists will be lobbying Congress on June 11. Add your voice to theirs! Call your representative in support of H. Res 143, in support of a special US envoy for Middle East Peace. To reach the Capitol switchboard dial 1-202-224-3121 or call toll free: 1-888-597-0909. (Find your representative here) This is the best way to show support for the Arab League’s recent peace proposal, which the US and Israel have been slow to endorse.

As you can see, the PDA’s Olive Tree Democrats (see ++ below for more on where they’re coming from) specifically asks us to support H Res 143 (Appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace), sponsored by Susan Davis of San Diego. They suggest writing your Representative something like this:

I’m writing to you in support of efforts to promote peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. There are many things we can do at this time to support the Arab League’s recent reintroduction of their 2002 peace proposal.

One of the most important is the appointment of a special envoy for Middle East peace (H Res 143).

I care about the future of both Israelis and Palestinians. Steps to end the occupation of the Palestinian people will improve the lives of everyone in the Middle East.

If you still can’t stand having anything to do with the damn Democrats, then follow the lead of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, which says you should write something like the following to your Congressperson about H Res 143:

I am contacting you to express my support for H.Res. 143, Congresswoman Davis’ (D-CA) resolution urging President Bush to appoint a special envoy for Middle East peace. I urge you to cosponsor and support this resolution.

Davis’ resolution rightly points out that it is in our nation’s best interest to promote peace and dialogue in the Middle East. For the past several years, the United States has neglected its diplomatic efforts toward ending the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. It is imperative that we act as an honest broker and uphold international law while working toward a lasting peace. A just resolution to the conflict will be in the best interest of Israelis and Palestinians and serve to ameliorate long standing grievances between the Arab world and Israel.

The last few years have seen the US pursue foreign policy objectives which have severely tarnished the image of the US around the globe. Our policies in the Middle East should be implemented through dialogue and diplomacy as opposed to invasions and sanctions. Appointing a special envoy to the Middle East to work on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way toward helping repair American’s image in the international community and particularly in the Arab and Muslim world.

A just and lasting peace in the Middle East is needed now more than ever. Reengagement of American diplomatic efforts that are even handed and uphold international law are in the best interest of the Palestinians, Israelis as well as Americans. Congress should pass H.Res 143 and President Bush should appoint a special envoy to the conflict.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

++ From the Olive Tree Democrats’ (draft?) Mission Statement:

The vast majority of Democrats – and Americans – support a negotiated, just, and peaceful solution between the Israel and the Palestinian people, as represented by their lawfully elected governments. OTD believes that any just solution will require the establishment of two states as a precondition for achieving a lasting peace, and that the 1949 Green Line armistice line must serve as the basis for any future border or territory swaps. Palestinian claims regarding refugees, restitution, equal rights and freedom of movement must be seen as the equal of Israeli security needs. OTD’s approach is consistent with that of most Israeli and Palestinian peace organizations, the current Arab League peace initiative, international law and UN resolutions.

Promoted by Steven D. I ended my contributions to MoveOn after 2004 because I felt they had become less a progressive organization than just another promoter of the Democratic Party. I want progressives to be pushing the Dems to do the right thing, not enabling them to do the wrong thing for “tactical” reasons.

Just got this wretch-inducing appeal from wasted lives & quagmire enabler MoveOn (emphasis added and repeated requests for YKos donations deleted):

(cont.)

From:  “Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Political Action”

To:  “fairleft”

Subject: Big progressive conference in Chicago — want to come?

Dear MoveOn member,

We wanted to invite you to join fellow progressive activists, bloggers, leaders, and writers at the second annual Yearly Kos convention this August in Chicago.

MoveOn is co-sponsoring this weekend of thinking about people-powered politics and Internet-driven activism. MoveOn staff will be there along with major bloggers, leaders of top progressive organizations, and progressive media outlets. There will also be a presidential candidates forum — John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson have already accepted.

… Want to join us at the Yearly Kos convention in Chicago from August 2nd to 5th? …

The best reason to come isn’t the big names–it’s the chance to connect with thousands of other folks working across the country to build a more progressive America. …

We hope we’ll see you there.

Sincerely,

–Eli Pariser, Executive Director

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Okay, barring the cognitive dissonance of seeing three mainstream Democratic Presidential candidates so close to a word they run like jackrabbits from, you just have to say, WOW, talk about PROGRESSIVE (I mean “PROGRESSIVE”), that sure must be some sort of progressive, “people-powered” event gonna take place in Chicago! Except, well we know about MoveOn and DailyKos (and (seems to me) YearlyKos): they’re Democratic Party front organizations. That ain’t progressive, it’s more like:

Let’s get ourselves elected with Dkos yokels’ volunteering and money. It won’t cost us any ‘real player’ support, cuz these chumps never demand a thing!

MoveOn ain’t progressive. Just one story will tell you what they’re really about, because in March Eli Pariser and MoveOn were at their Iraq-quagmire-enabling, Democratic-Party-leadership-faithful, tell-ya-all-ya-need-to-know worst, as told by David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet: MoveOn.org Versus Its Members

True Majority was a late addition to the list [of organizations in favor of Rep. Barbara Lee’s fund an Iraq withdrawal bill]. The organization polled its members. Did they favor the Pelosi bill to fund the war but include various toothless restrictions on it, or did they favor the Lee plan to use the power of the purse to end the war by the end of the year? Needless to say, True Majority’s membership favored the Lee plan.

MoveOn polled its membership without including the Lee alternative, offering a choice of only Pelosi’s plan or nothing. Amazingly, Eli Pariser of MoveOn has admitted that the reason MoveOn did this was because they knew that their members would favor the Lee amendment.

In fact, writes Swanson, the point of MoveOn’s two-choices-only poll …

… was to allow MoveOn to announce that its membership supported Pelosi rather than Lee. Yet Pariser admits that he did not offer MoveOn’s membership a choice of Lee’s plan because he knew they would vote for it. …

Actually, [Pariser] doesn’t say that he knows Lee’s plan would have won out over Pelosi’s. But he certainly does not know that it wouldn’t have, and making that baseless and to my mind very unlikely claim was the only possible point of having done the poll. The rationale that Pariser offers is absurd. The poll could only have had one result. It served to give cover to progressive Democrats in Congress who gave their support to Pelosi after having intended to vote no on Pelosi’s bill unless it included Lee’s amendment.

[Pariser] didn’t let them make the supposed mistake of backing Lee rather than Pelosi, because Lee supposedly could never pass, while Pelosi could.

In addition to “the extreme arrogance and dishonesty,” Swanson adds two more reasons why Pariser and MoveOn’s decision to back Pelosi and not Lee was the opposite of antiwar strategy:

…as Bob Fertik has pointed out, even if Lee’s amendment did not pass, a vote for it would have helped to build war opposition in Congress, Pelosi’s bill could have still passed too, and other amendments could still have been denied a vote.

[Secondly,] we have no proof that Lee’s amendment could not have been passed. A third of the Democrats have taken similar positions. The leadership could have brought another third on board. And relentless pressure and threats and bribes of the sort aimed at progressives could have brought many of the right-wing Democrats along. And if it had failed, and the Republicans and Republican-lite Democrats had voted down the bill, it would have been clear who stood where, and Pelosi could have announced victory and the end of the war. The Pentagon has more than enough money to safely bring our troops home right away without Congress passing any bill at all.

All of MoveOn and the Democratic Leadership’s maneuvering in April and May was more of this b.s., and we finally ended up — is it where they wanted us to be? — with a fully funded occupation ($95 Billion is funding for 9 months, not 4, by the way). And, reacting after the nasty May 24 deal (not pro-acting; he and his frontpage didn’t say/do diddly when the deal was in play and might’ve been stopped (and neither did MoveOn)), Markos Moulitsas counsels patience (and please don’t put your chump change under the mattress!).

Speaking of that repeated ad infinitum `progressive’, YearlyKos let’s you know it doesn’t mean a damn thing. Here’s the YearlyKos website:

YearlyKos uses the term “progressive” to describe the common values held by most Americans, rather than as a reference to any political or partisan agenda.

Here’s more on the (insider) people-powered ‘movement’ of which YearlyKos is a part and over which Daily Kos is a leader/minder:

… the Netroots is made up of individuals — not corporations, not lobbyist groups, not any large money-infused machine that (currently) influences all that occurs inside the beltway. The most-visited blog of this movement is Daily Kos, founded in 2002 by MarKOS Moulitsas.

And finally, here’s Markos on his anti-ideology, and that means you, progressives:

The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It’s one between establishment and anti-establishment factions.

Like I said, we give `em our money and demand nothing in return. And that’s about all we’ve gotten. Can we at least ask for more from the blog we regularly post at? Can we at least ask more from a MoveOn that lives on its obsession with being seen as ‘progressive’?

By the way, if you want to know what a progressive Democrat looks like, definitely check out Bob Fertik at democrats. com. He’s trying to rustle up primary challenges to the Cheney Democrats who just voted more funds for the occupation. For example, wouldn’t it be ‘progressive’ to see this on the DailyKos frontpage: “Bush Democrats” Answer Primary Challenges with Lies and Stupidity

I’m sorry, Senator Reid, Congressmen Obey and Murtha, and Big Tent Democrat, but September will be just like May, unless . . . you change this:

“I cannot vote … to stop funding for our troops who are in harm’s way.”

— Carl Levin

No, Rep. Obey, if you don’t change the Carl Levins the following is b.s.:

“We will transfer the Iraqi fight to September. Opponents of this war need to face this fact, just as the president and his allies need to face the fact that they are pursuing a dead-end policy.”

No, you have to change the thinking and voting of folks like Carl Levin (and countless other Congressional Democrats) or Congress will be just as subject to Bush blackmail – look, Bush plays chicken with the troops, with a vengeance – and you will always in the end give him the money he wants. So, Congressional Democrats,  either deal with Bush’s game or go home.

In September, assuming the Democratic leadership goes along with John Murtha and takes Iraq Supplemental funds out of the regular fiscal 2008 defense bill (which will be voted on in July) and keeps Iraq funding `supplemental’, then there will be a vote on funding the Iraq occupation/war. And, presumably, the White House will want funding for the entire fiscal year, about $145 Billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now Harry Reid, John Murtha, and David Obey (and BTD) may want to give Mr. Bush half that, and put the sociopath on a short leash. But, once again, what will they do if Bush threatens to veto anything less than the full $145 Billion? I.e., replicating, more or less, his successful stance against the short-leash bill passed recently by the House? Does Congress pass a bill anyway that it knows he will veto? And is it then `forced’ (see `support the troops’ rhetoric buy-in by Carl Levin above) the second time round to put something together that Bush will not veto, just like it did a few days ago?

I can’t see any reason not to think so. Same old same old, and clueless about what has to change so there won’t be the same old same old.

Nonetheless, last Friday Big Tent Democrat wrote about the funding Iraq debacle — Iraq Supplemental: From the Ashes Can Rise The Not Funding Phoenix — with an inexplicably hopeful heart:

I believe, after this hard lesson, for Democrats in Congress, for progressive activists, for the Netroots, we can now go forward with a PRAGMATIC, realistic plan to end the Iraq debacle AND play smart politics. Yes, from these ashes should rise the Reid/Feingold … NOT funding after a date certain framework.

BTD thinks a Reid-Feingold-esque commitment by Democrats to a `no more Iraq funds’ date certain is the way to get us out of Iraq sometime soon. I don’t. Here’s what I think, in an exchange a couple days ago with a Reid-Feingold believer and BTD supporter:

…Reid-Feingold was a “big deal” because it supplied the best framework for ending the war, and would have sent a message to Bush that he can keep vetoing all he wants, but he was never going to get another blank check.

— Categorically Imperative

I don’t get that. There was no ‘best framework’ possible, so why pretend, that was obviously always a myth.
The only way to end the war before 2009 was and is to fly directly into Bush’s blackmailing (“I’m gonna leave them there without bullets or food.”) and just vote ‘no’ on Iraq funding. (Note how this has the opposite to do with creating, sponsoring, or managing any bill.) When 50% of either House does that, a funding bill cannot pass. It would be a bloody, loud, angry mess and I half-expect Bush would come very close to going through with his threats, but that’s the only way we would get out.

— fairleft

Later in the same post BTD writes (emphasis added):

The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.

The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.

Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can’t end it on March 31, 2008.

This is nonsense: If you say it now, that’s meaningless and Bush knows it. What matters is what a majority of Congress will do when Bush starts to play chicken, like he did this month. Look at it this way: what will the `date-certain’ Reid-Feingold statement makers do if troops are still in Iraq in the middle of March, 2008, and Bush is ranting, “I dare you to deny funding to troops in the field?”

They will back down and give the President his money, unless they are prepared for that tactic.

Unless the antiwar contingent in Congress makes the argument, starting now and very noisily, that it will not back down even if the President is playing chicken with the troops. Anti-warriors must make the case from now till September, and start to prepare and spin the public for the vicious, anti-democratic game the President will play. The public must be told why so many in Congress will not back down in September.

Rep. John Murtha, who I otherwise have a lot of respect for (he gave us `short-leash’: great idea!), wrote at HuffingtonPost on May 24:

Some have suggested that since the president refuses to compromise, Democrats should refuse to send him anything. I disagree. There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.

But Democrats have not and will not “refuse to send him anything.” An authentically antiwar Congress definitely should and would pass an Iraq supplemental that is short-term/leash or even better has a hard deadline for pulling out the troops. The money runs out with troops in harm’s way only if the President vetoes such a bill (or bills).

The Democratic leadership, or failing them the Democratic anti-war leadership, must argue that the Commander-in-Chief commits treason by both vetoing funding and refusing to withdraw U.S. troops from danger. Congress must of course be prepared to replace Bush immediately through impeachment in those circumstances. This threat must be voiced, from now till September, or Bush will know September will be as push-over as the May one.

Actually, a much more likely scenario is that if the occupation isn’t funded the troops will be withdrawn. That withdrawal may `harm’ the President as his bloody dreams die, but the troops will be safer than ever, back home. Rather than policing a meaningless occupation; that’s `support the troops’.

My `just say no’ strategy already has the support of 51% of U.S. Democrats (see April 20-24 CBS/NYT Poll). In sum, as I said on talkleft a few days ago (emphasis added):

It won’t work today, it will work in September

in my humble opinion. But only if anti-warriors in Congress start the ball rolling and argue their case, and the real progressive netroots publicize and honor them, and attack (and ‘punish’) those (including Presidential candidates) not on the bandwagon.

“Yes, Mr. Bush, you’ve forced us into this game, so there you go.” Unfortunately, it’s the only effective way to deal with the bully.

[UPDATE: Just to add that I admire and appreciate BTD A LOT for his focus — and his effort to focus blogosphere attention — on getting the US out of Iraq.]

Let’s assume the whole Iraq funding fight for Congress was just “political foreplay,” as a “Democratic leadership source” told CNN on Tuesday (emphasis added throughout):

A senior Democratic senator said late last week the last-minute attempts by Democrats to get a withdrawal timeline was “political foreplay.”

A Democratic leadership source told CNN some two months ago that Democratic leaders knew they would have to send the president a war funding bill without a timeline, and that would likely mean a bill with significant Democratic defections and GOP support.

The maneuvering over the past several weeks has been a Democratic attempt to show their anti-war base that party leaders were trying until the 11th hour to stand up to the president, the source said.

Okay, that’s bad enough, but my question for blogland is, “Was Dailykos in on the political foreplay?” Because it’s pretty damn disturbing that Dailykos was virtually mum on the cave in from May 15 to 21 while it was being put together.

Yes, in case many of you didn’t know, Progressive Democrats of America found out about the deal on May 15 and shouted about it:

ACT NOW: CONTACT THE SENATE OVER IRAQ

May 15, 2007, Washington, DC

Your Senators will vote today on a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. They will vote next week on the $95 billion war funding bill. …

Next week, the Senate will vote on a new version of the supplemental war funding bill. We don’t know the details yet, but it looks like the Senate will give the President $95 billion for the war without any fixed timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. Call your Senator today, and next week to tell them to vote against the supplemental war funding bill, which amounts to a blank check for Bush/Cheney!

Me, my little pip squeak voice (since I’ve been banned from dailykos (no reason, or check my diaries and comments and you tell me) it’s even pipsqueakier), I was shouting as loud as I could about the PDA revelations (look at my diaries here, here, and here) but I was ignored of course. Obviously such would not have been the case if front pagers at kos had blogged repeatedly about this betrayal before it came down. Why didn’t they?

So yeah, we’ve seen the whining outpour on May 21 and after by illustrious dailykossacks Meteor Blades, mcjoan, and devilstower, but what were they doing when it mattered? What were they doing — from the time a reliable ‘deal’ rumor came down and up till the betrayal was finally hammered out — to sway the powers that be by warning and rallying antiwarriors everywhere, speaking from the big megaphone dailykos site? A grand total of one post, by mcjoan, late Friday, May 18.

Time Out for reassuring words from Greg Sargent, by way of mcjoan on May 18:  

… the Dem leadership insists it’s committed to not giving Bush a blank check, and it has consistently hung much tougher than anyone expected and has steadily defied expectations in the process.

Meteor Blades and Devilstower wrote nothing May 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 on the unconditional funding sell out. Mcjoan wrote nothing about impending Iraq capitulation on May 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20. Why not? Those three are supposed to be big time ‘liberal’ members of the dailykos frontpage. Don’t tell me they probably weren’t aware (not the ‘stupid and incompetent’ excuse again), or that such a deal — in flux and still influence-able by us outsiders — wasn’t important. No, just tell me they were being good, cautious insider boys and girls. That rings most true, based on my experience there.

As usual, the ‘progressive’ blogosphere is jumping the “We give up!” gun and w-h-i-n-i-n-g like crazy. People, the key Iraq funding bill is still in play! The blogo-whine is about the news that’s been widely expected since May 15 (where the h#@%ll were you ‘progressives’ this past week?), and something I’ve been shouting about in my echo chamber since then(all emphasis added):

After weeks of refusing to back down to President Bush on setting a timetable on Iraq, House Democratic leaders face having to explain to their party’s rank and file why they’ve now relented.

Party officials said Monday the next war spending bill most likely will fund military operations and not demand a timeline to bring troops home

But in fact, despite this article being written from the (evil ‘bipartisan’) leadership’s perspective, obviously the final bill is still in play, the fight (especially in and with the House) is far from over (seems like it’s just begun), and so, in order to forego the pleasures of whining over another defeat for peace, the time to act is now:

Facing a self-imposed weekend deadline, Congressional Democrats said Monday that they remained uncertain how they would shape a war spending measure that has been the center of a political and policy battle with President Bush.

After an evening meeting of top House Democrats, the party canceled a session at which they were to present the elements of a new war spending proposal to the rank and file in anticipation of a vote this week.

“There is no deal,” said Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and is one of the lead negotiators over the war money.

AP gives us more on the party leaders’ difficulties with democracy in the House, which should be ‘get out now’ activists’ cue to call/e-mail your Representative:

But Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately — or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months.

The details of the Democrats’ new bill remained in flux late Monday, as Rep. David Obey was tasked with negotiating with the Senate and White House. Obey, D-Wis., is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Looks like were in the middle of the action on Iraq funding this week, so what is the progressive blogosphere reaction? Well, note how blogosphere biggie Big Tent Democrat prefers to whine about Obey rather than accept and urge action based on the above ‘in flux’ news. Timing anyone? I.e., couldn’t we wait for such an anti-Obey post till after the shooting is over? Not that this phenomenon is confined to BTD; dkos humorist Bob Johnson, instead of urging leadership to at least support for short-leash funding (the relatively safe position which still gets the frequent votes on funding the antiwar movement needs), decides now is the time for sour and non-specific whining about how insufficiently antiwar our Presidential frontrunners are. Instead, how ’bout asking them to come out in favor of “short-leash,” or even better urge them to declare “I ain’t gonna fund this war no more”?

In the real world right now, we need as many of you as possible to contact your Representative in the House and urge him or her to vote against funding the war (Medea has a little something wrong, the Senate is hopeless so you don’t need to contact your Senator; you need to contact your Representative). The only way we stop the war before 2009 is to stop funding it, the sooner the better. And, briefly on strategy, it is not good, but it is better for Democrats in 2008 if this continue the quagmire bill passes as a ‘Republicans + Blue Dogs’ bill.

By the way, as far as I’m concerned let’s forget Feingold-Reid and keep this simple and courageous: to be antiwar our representatives must vote “no” on Iraq war funding bills. We’ve already got 171 in the more antiwar House — and we only need 50% of the House! — to stop Bush’s killing.

(Not a slow news day at all, Booman.)

Are the Congressional Democrats as we speak caving on Iraq (see the AP’s Dems set war bill without Iraq timeline)? I’m not so sure, and I sure don’t think we should prematurely shrug our shoulders. And, actually, apparently the leadership-constructed compromise hasn’t even been seen yet by the rank-and-file in the more antiwar House.

But McJoan at dkos (Blank Check on its Way) certainly seems to have given up hope:

All of the details haven’t been released yet, pending meetings in the Dem caucus in the House to discuss the bill, so changes could still be made. Will those changes include real timelines? Seems pretty unlikely, since the leadership says they want a bill that won’t be vetoed.

Hey McJoan, that’s poor reasoning and a seriously whimpy attitude. The leadership not wanting a bill that will be vetoed needs to be balanced with the Democratic electorate not wanting a bill that keeps the quagmire going indefinitely. Y’ know, maybe we should let our Congresspeople know we’ll be really p.o.-ed if they persist — after what we told them in November 2006 — in making Iraq a bipartisan nightmare.

McJoan tries to end on an optimistic note, but fails miserably:

So what can Congress do? Stick to the Feingold-Reid, Iraq Study Group framework. No more funding after March 31, 2008. Use the intransigence of Bush and the GOP against them. If Bush won’t end this war, end it for him.

Well, since earlier she said the Republicans are very unlikely to break with Bush on Iraq, how does she think Feingold-Reid ever becomes law over the top of a Presidential veto? That strategy, translated: ‘I give up, we’ll never get out till Bush is out of office.’

So things are clear, the only way out of Iraq in 2007 or 2008 is to do what Congress can do this week: defund the war by giving Bush a bill he ‘has to’ veto. Or, create such a short-leash and so many excruciating votes that at least we have a chance to defund every two or three months. Pro-war people need a majority to pass a bill, and eventually — if the Democrats stay united and rightly blame Bush for de-funding the troops — there will not be no such majority. I think eventually may come as soon as September.

A little more on the smoke-filled rooms:

WASHINGTON – In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops …

Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party’s rank and file later in the day.

Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society.

Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.

… Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush’s desk by week’s end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.

And more, from this White House spokesperson:

Republicans offered to accept a proposal by Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., requiring Bush to produce reports in July and September on the Iraqi government’s progress toward certain benchmarks. Unless he certified that they were moving forward, reconstruction aid would be withheld. …

Sean Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, said today that Congress should proceed with the Warner approach.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Bush spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki this morning, and the two discussed benchmarks such as progress on an oil revenue-sharing law and a “constitutional review process.”

…

Mark Stoller at Mydd seems to have a better attitude on this evolving battle with ‘our’ Democrats than does McJoan. It’s both more combative and more cautious:

I think all of us understand pragmatism in politics, which is why this is so irritating.  It’s not like this was a hard vote to take.  Iraq is extremely unpopular.  People hate this war, and they hate Bush.  Many conservatives hate Bush. …

And I’m going to wait until someone confirms the AP story before buying the Dem capitulation line.  We’ve been spoonfed false assertions like that from anonymous sources far too many times to refuse prudence.

Senate Democrats have apparently decided to disappear the great House bill (which had only 2 months of funding and then a vote in July that might have been the showdown on funding, and then another vote in September that even more likely would’ve been the showdown to get us out in 2007) and instead want to give Bush a $95 Billion Supplemental:

Next week, the Senate will vote on a new version of the supplemental war funding bill.  We don’t know the details yet, but it looks like the Senate will give the President $95 billion for the war without
any fixed timeline for the withdrawal of our troops.  Call your Senator today, and next week to tell them to vote against the supplemental war funding bill, which amounts to a blank check for Bush/Cheney!

By the way, $95 Billion, at $1.9 Billion a week, equals 50 weeks of war funding!

Read the entire Progressive Democrats post. Here’s what’s the plan is: Reid-Feingold will be the figleaf Democrats use to block criticism of their $95 Billion full funding of the occupation.

Let your Presidential candidate know — http://www.hillaryclinton.com/  http://www.barackobama.com/ http://www.joebiden.com/ http://www.chrisdodd.com/– this will not cut it for you, and your support is on the line.

You are antiwar and voting for the $95 Billion is pro-war. 50 more weeks of pro-war.

(Crossposted at myleftwing
)

As far as I’m concerned, Senator Obama yesterday let the cat out of the bag: the Democrats are going to capitulate and let President Bush have his ‘clean’ Iraq supplemental bill. Okay, even if that wasn’t or isn’t the plan, ‘progressive’ Obama’s statement gets the capitulation bandwagon off to a roaring start.

Thanks, thanks a helluva lot, Senator.

Markos among many others has rightly criticized the inept politician (best interpretation) / war enabler (worst). But now, let’s clean up some business and admit that Big Tent Democrat over at talkleft was right on this, and the Harry Reid / Nancy Pelosi cheerleaders were wrong.
BTD has long predicted that either Bush will sign the present bill (after he discovers (he would be the last to do so (other than “binding language” David Sirota)) that its troop pull-out deadlines are mythical) or, especially now, will veto it knowing the Democrats will capitulate. The second option has to be preferred now, since Obama has relieved Bush of any doubt over whether the Democrats will stand ‘firm’ against his veto.

So now, if Bush signs the supplemental, he just gets the money. But if he vetoes, watches the Democrats capitulate and then signs the clean bill, he gets the money AND gets to watch congressional Democrats perform their excruciating ritual, “We are Weaklings in the Age of Terror.”

Has there been any dailykos criticism of Big Tent Democrat the last two, three weeks for his not hopping aboard the Supplemental Funding express? Yes, just a little, here and there. And how about David Sirota? Guess he’ll be the last guy to find out what many (including BTD) expected and based their analysis on, that the Democrats, even a vaunted ‘progressive’ like Obama, would stand soft not firm. Here’s Sirota still optimistic a couple days ago:

The real centrists are people like Ellison, Nadler, Doggett and the other antiwar Democrats standing firm – and at least judging by their public statements, it’s clear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid understand this basic truth. Their public statements also suggest that they understand that they have a mandate to stand firm against President Bush, if he vetoes the entire bill when it reaches his desk. It will be up to us, the progressive movement, to help sustain and solidify public pressure and support for these leaders to follow through on ending the war.

Nope, don’t think so, and BTD never thought so. The ‘progressive’ pressure game is over before it started, General Obama has gone soft.

In contrast, here was BTD on March 24:

I think we all know what is going to happen — the “firm” date for withdrawal, August 31, 2008, will become a “goal.” And this “goal” was once December 31, 2006, then 2007, now 2008.

And earlier, on March 14 (emphasis added):

You want to stop the Iraq Debacle you can not fund Bush’s war. To pretend that there is another way is an insult to the intelligence of the American People. That is why I (And I speak ONLY for me) urge opposition to the House Dem Leadership/Blue Dog proposal, as it is a travesty that does nothing to end the Debacle.

He was right. He is right still. Now will we progressives act to de-fund rather than fund the occupation? Filibuster, 41 Senators, keep it simple.