I am aware of what politics entails, of the necessary compromises one must make in order to gain objectives for the overall good, as you define it. But this goes too far.
As was said by Harry Reid, where was the outrage and condemnation when Max Cleland was compared to Osama B. Laden? Or was the sacrifice of his 4th and last remaining limb required to prove he was not soft on defense? Or when Kerry was Swift-boated, where was that outrage in the Republican Senate? I've said before, you don't give the Fiddler-on-the-Roof response to these events: On the one hand, but on the Other hand.... Supposed fairness gets you what it got the Democratic Senators today from me and others: scorn and repugnance and defeat.
So, though I suppose it will matter to noone, I'm leaving the fight to Lowell and Gray Haven and others. I quit because I don't believe there is enough Palmolive to wash away the slime of this cowardly compromise from my hands. Let the Republicans twist the moral bootlickers any way they will; I have enough money that financial gain will be mine under the party I have despised for years, a party I voted against always because I believe in social justice. Now that the belief has been betrayed, I'll just clip my bond coupons and wait for the next surrender.
Bye bye.
The Boxer amendment garnered 50 votes. I think it meant something because it spoke of the incivility used against men in the uniform, which needs to stop.
I agree that it is strange to give up the fight over a symbolic non-binding resolution that only speaks to political theater instead of substance. Because those same Republicans did not vote for the Boxer amendment (only Hagel and Specter did), they have now been branded hypocrities. Yesterday was more discouraging to me about the Iraq votes, where we did not get more Republican votes and, in fact, lost a couple. Same with the Webb amendment the previous day.
But I didn't get involved with this fight because it would be easy or because there wouldn't be setbacks. This is a long fight, and we need to continue and not let the bastards get us down.
The fact that you even care about this faux-controversy is EXACTLY what they were hoping for.
Last month Jim Webb was a coward. Yesterday we have to help him get his amendment passed. Today he's a coward again. Nice.
Can we not just...move on?
What the Democratic Senators still do not understand (e.g., that ridiculous Boxer Amendment) is that the public and electorate are sick of their political "I'll show you who's more patriotic" tricks.
Message to Democratic Senators -- show that you are still interested in ending this war and begin by taking another look at the Patraeus testimony and then catch up to what we all already know about it. Quit getting caught in the Republican tricks and tom-foolery that they continue to lure you into. Tell them that if they don't have time to discuss the issues, then the Democrats do!!!! Now do it!
I felt very angry, disgusted, and depressed after the FISA vote gave away civil liberties gained in the wake of CIA domestic spying and FBI harassment during Vietnam.
It seems we should be winning with a majority in Congress. It seems that the Democrats should realize that the only way the war will ever end is if they refuse to vote appropriations that keep it going. War is easy. Peace is hard work and requires patience and finding joy in other places that sustain your peace work. Please don't despair of working for your dream of peace. Here's a poem for solace.
Dreams
Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly.
Hold fast to dreams
For when dreams go
Life is a barren field
Frozen with snow.
Langston Hughes
--And the "Military Commissions Act" before that.
--And the "Patriot Act" before that.
--And the voter suppression campaigns before that.
--And the warrantless wiretapping and data-mining before that.
--And the "torture memo" before that.
--And the repetitive caving on funding the pointless occupation of Iraq.
--All the way back to the timorous AUMF for Iraq and the inability to ask hard questions when confronted with myths, fabrications, and delusional goals as reasons to go to war.
--Can we really expect this crowd to display more spine the day after Bush/Cheney decide to launch their next preemptive war against Iran? I don't.
--And now we have this pointless, Republican-generated "gotcha" criticism of MoveOn, which merely tried to point out that Gen. Petraeus was cherry-picking some numbers, fabricating others. and essentially "cooking the books" to justify another FU, or much more likely, a multitude of FU's for U.S. forces in Iraq. Even the CENTCOM Commander Admiral Fallon, according to Gareth Porter, is reported by Pentagon sources to have described Petraeus as an "ass-kissing little chickenshit." Will the Republicans now go after Admiral Fallon as well for dissing this apparatchik who happens to wear a uniform?
Like you, soccerdem, I'll probably manage to live comfortably whether the Corporatists Classic or the Corporatists Lite are in charge. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference.
Jeesh. Maybe it's time to give up and start looking for another country, one with some remaining trappings of a real democracy with a real opposition, an opposition (even a social democratic governing coalition in some places!) that seeks to promote the general good--the greatest good for the greatest number, and not merely more privileges for the wealthiest 1/10th of one percent.
Events on the ground--both in the Gulf and in the world's financial markets--will now proceed apace.
If we cannot keep a constant check on reality, sooner or later reality will checkmate us. The tectonic shifts have already begun.
Our entire political class appears to be not merely spineless, but clueless.
Again, you've said it so well.
I will have more to say later. For now I am keeping my own counsel because there is no longer free speech in the Democratic party. But I will not be silent indefinitely. In lieu of my own words, please read what Jane Hamsher wrote. I wish I had written that. Here is the link.
Its funny, I've been thinking all day about saying my goodbyes today as well. Life is too short to waste my time fighting for God knows who. But I doubt I'll quit. I wouldn't know what else to do.
At any rate, I feel a lot like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, when Senator Payne betrayed him and accused him of fraud.
So, to end on a better note, here's a more inspiring scene:
But to fail on symbolic votes? That is shameful.
Modern Democrats are no Ciceros. I believe that this fact has been well proven by now. Every time that I see them doing another rhetorical mistake, I roll my eyes and think, "here we go again..."
Now, I do disagree when you said that your leaving us will matter no none. It matters to me. I like reading your diaries when I have a chance to do so, and it will make me terribly sorry to come here and to think that I will not be able to read your opinions. That is how I feel when I read comments of former members, and now it seems that I will feel the same way when I run into your diaries and comments.
I hope that you reconsider, and that you will continue participating. Our modern Democrats are no FDRs, but they are the best we have, and it is helpful to have your around to point out their flaws.
Yesterday's participation by Democrats in that vote against Moveon.org's ad was completely unnecessary, shameful and politically motivated.
There is a line which should never be crossed in a democracy and that is the right to free speech whether you like it or not.
To have Democratic Senators vote along with Bush and the Republicans in this sick political act is beyond my comprehension of decency.
As soon as Keith Olbermann's comment last night on this issue is posted on Youtube, I'll post it here.
If Democratic Senators will vote to condemn political free speech, where do we go from here?
PS I'm getting out my checkbook and sending a contribution to MoveOn. This issue is about ending the war, stopping the killing, ending the maiming, not about a General who found it convenient to step into the political arena right before the 2004 election and tell us "things are better in Iraq" for George W. Bush's re-election. The fight to maintain democracy can afford to leave General Patraeus by the wayside.
My intent is to stop giving money to Democratic candidates and to divert it instead to MoveOn, ACLU and similar organizations. At least they put up a real fight.
What irks me about our own gaggle of spineless senators (including my favorite, Jim Webb), is that they have missed the free speech aspect of MoveOn's piece, and for some odd reason do not think it's appropriate to criticize Gen. Petraeus. Where are we, Pakistan? Maybe they should have said that Petraeus sucks, and Bush is the traitor.
In any event, we all ache for leadership including leaders who will stand up to the Republicans but unfortunately, all we have is a rather timid lot in the aggregate.
In Virginia, there is an election every year and very little rest for the weary. When I "hit the wall", I "visit" with those who came before me, who struggled against odds, who stepped up when no one seemed to be stepping up. I find solace and inspiration from their struggles and wisdom..and (for me) puts everything in perspective. Have enjoyed reading your insightful posts....perhaps more in the future.
Fannie Lou Hamer:
"I am sick and tired of being sick and tired."
"Nobody's free until everybody's free."
Fannie Lou Hamer, a Mississippi sharecropper, changed a nation's perspective on democracy.
web site here: http://www.greatwome...
from Maya Angelou's Wellesley College Commencement
.."But it is important to remember that it may be necessary to encounter defeat, I don't know. But I do know that a diamond, one of the most precious elements in this planet, certainly one in many ways the hardest, is the result of extreme pressure and time. Under less pressure, it's crystal. Less pressure that that, it's coal, less than that, its fossilized leaves are just plain dirt."
Eleanor Roosevelt:
"You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, 'I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along.' You must do the thing you think you cannot do."
repudiate - reject as untrue, unfounded, or unjust;
Just who in the Senate believes that they are the absolute speakers of the truth and have the right to declare everyone else does not speak the truth, especially on something that has not fully materialized.
What Moveon.org wrote may affend many, but whom amungst you can really say that what Moveon.org said is not the truth.
To me when ever Bush speaks he lies, and as I heard Petraeus utter Bush's exact words in the House and Senate reports I just wonder how much truth is coming out of that persons mouth.
There is one thing wrong with the Moveon.org ad. It came out before he testified before those commitees, of course Moveon probably had his statement before he spoke it.
I still believe those who voted for S.RES 315 voted against the 1st Amendment and are traitors to our constitution.
SEC.X--SENSE OF SENATE.(a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;
(2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;
(3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``reprehensible'';
(4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;
(5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``dishonest and dishonorable.''
(6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and
(7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.
(b) SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and
(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
Source: Thomas
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---50
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Every Democrat voted "yea" on this emendment except for Russ Feingold (nay), Joe Biden (not voting) and Maria Cantwell (not voting).
(b) SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
Why would anyone make such a blanket statement? Was Westmoreland honorable in Vietnam? Heck no.
Like our general population there are a lot of bad apples in our military who don't blindly deserve any support, let alone strong support.
These days, with our low standards on who the military will accept, one should be extra carefully on handing out praise.
If only Congress would start supporting the middle-class, like they do the military. BTW, if the war is so important, why don't we have the draft? If we care about the military people, why don't we get them the armed vehicles they need - certainly our numerous idle auto factories could build them?
Thanks Matt. You're great!!! And you're not naive!
I have a hard time believing they want that.
And with 47 million Americans lacking health insurance, I cringe at the thought of seeing Republicans winning in 2008.
And with federal funding for stem cell research blocked, I cringe at the thought of seeing Republicans winning in 2008.
And with the Supreme Court just 1 vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade, civil liberties, environmental protections, workers' rights, and much else, I cringe at the thought of seeing Republicans winning in 2008.
And with our nation's international reputation in tatters, I cringe at the thought of seeing Republicans winning in 2008.
This could go on and on. The point is that to abandon the Democratic Party is extremely unwise, as the alternative is far FAR worse.
b) I am going to be blunt here. If you believe in America, you don't have the option of sitting on the sidelines while bush-cheney and the republicans send America into hell. I guarantee you that there will be setbacks but we are the only hope that America has left.
Did you get the moveon.org lattest email. They are saying in 1 day over 12,000 people donated $500,000 toward their next ad. And they go on by posting all the emails they received from our troops, the troops asking them to continue with what they are doing and Moveon.org is their only true voice. The Media is continuing the Bush administration lies and spin so much, that the troops are starting to feel abandoned.
So please reconsider and keep bashing our elected officals till they change their stupid ways.
Thank You again for the fine post and making the pot boil..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO.
YOU ARE OUR voice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
have given a son to this country. My brother, my father, my uncle have all served honorably and bravely. I am a loyal American. I am outraged and sick to death of the tactics this administration uses to try to silence dissent to a war that is unjust, built and maintained on lies, political power, and greed. I was content to let others fight more loudly, but no more.
-Sharyn W., NC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am a prior soldier who served in Iraq for 13 months, and am now an expecting mom with a husband who is deployed in Baghdad. I don't think I can ever forgive the Bush administration for the lies that tricked America into this war and hurt my family so badly. I am ashamed of those American politicians who would condemn an organization for practicing the Freedom of Speech that so many soldiers have died for.
-Danielle B., OH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...
As a US Navy veteran and an Iraq war veteran of over a year I want to ask, What has happened to us? What has happened to our voice? Where is this country going with stopping free speech and free press? ... Every time I think of the long nights I had in Anbar remembering what I was fighting for, well here it is....
-Ahmad H., LA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...
As a Marine I served for many reasons but one of them was to allow people the freedom of speech, whether I agreed with it or not. Wearing a uniform does not mean someone isn't a shill, is spewing propaganda, and downright lies. MoveOn has every right to buy an ad and say what they want about a public figure. This administration has lied to us, deceived us, misled us and when posed with a challenge this is how they respond?
-Keith G., VA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>....
That was just a few.
And this is what you quit over?
Christ, and people wonder how Democrats seem to self-immolate on a regular basis!!!
"This" is NOT trivial. "This" is not nothing! This is joining with --instead of repudiating--those who would banish Move-on from America. Is this the America you think you live in?
But instead of repudiating this UnAmerican authoriatarian outrage, they (Senatorial Dems) pile on Moveon too! Repudiate Move-On? I repudiate John McCain. Where are the Dems doing so? Hillary (usually the sell out) finally got it right on this one. Not so, Obama (who was around but didn;t vote or Edwards who sent Elizabeth out to snark Moveon. I was undecided toward one or the other of them. Now to heck with them. (Don't mistake this for my supporting Hillary.)
These pols are so damn afraid of Republican false accusations that they'll do almost anything, even turn on and destroy their own.
Ask the 167,000 soldiers in Iraq whether this is at the top of their list of concerns...
Ask th 47 million uninsured if this is at the top of their concerns...
Ask the millions of working poor whether this is at the top of their list of concerns...
Ask those suffering from Cancer and AIDS whether they care about this...
People threatening to abandon the Democratic Party over this vote do not have their priorities straight!!!
These are dangerous times, with authoritarian, even totalitarian talk, bantied about by those in power and hardly anyone speaking out. And the authoritarian mantras are deemed not important by you. What exactly are are troops fighting for if not for the Constitution?
Pitch your take to someone who's drunk the Kool Aid. But I am not buying it, or knuckling under to it, or even listening to it anymore.
As of today, I am no longer on my County Democratic Committee. I quit. I am glad and I have no regrets.
I am not quitting RK at this time, but I do need to take a break. My final decision on that hasn't been made. I will give it considered thought.
However, you, SaveElmer, don't give me any hope that I belong here. But then where have you been? Did you just drop in from the DSCC or something to defend the indefensible?
It is not only OK to speak out, even rudely, if need be, when we are being lied to, but also its required for citizenship. If Petraeus can't do anything but Charlie McCarthy for Bush, then so be it. He doesn't deserve our respect. I dond't care what he has done in the past, or whether he's earned respect previously. Right now, he's the worst kind of enabler. Well, actually the worst kind are those who said they'd let General Petraeus decide our future in Iraq. That's abrogation of duty. They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, as an independent branch of government, not to let Petie --or the witless Bush--do their "thinking" for them.
I don't think this vote is the biggest issue on the planet and I am accused of aiding and abetting McCarthyism.
The vote was stupid, and will likely backfire, but it was a case of political posturing and CYA, nothing more...it was pathetic, but not dangerous...MoveOn was not gagged, and in fact have probably benefited. And the 25 Democrats that voted for it are not the reincarnation of Joseph McCarthy, as you seem to imply.
Pardon me if I think poverty, health care, climate change etc are just a wee bit more important than peevishness at some Democrats who voted to condemn MoveOn to cover their rumps...
Sure these things are more important, Elmer. But you won't get them fixed with a Republican Congress and President. And trust me the Republicans are working on it fast and furious here in my corner of Virginia.
One thing the Republicans understand clearly and absolutely. Don't act like a wimp because they'll think you're a wimp and who wants a wimp.
I'm not afraid of the Republicans. Why is Jim Webb? Warner stabbed him in the back and Webb turns around and votes for Warner's Republican condemnation of MoveOn. I want a man who will represent me (and frankly most Americans) on this issue. Everyone touts how tough he is.... so lets see him act tough.
I want to say I though the MoveOn characterization of General Patreus was out of line...and directed at the wrong person. If they are going to be big players on the political scene, MoveOn ought to have been more savvy than to resort to childish name calling that had the absolutely predictable effect of energizing the media and Republicans. Instead, that is all anyone is talking about, and the reality of Patreus's report has been completely lost, allowing Bush to claim it supports his efforts...
However, I think the condemnation resolution was equally over the top and Democrats should have voted no. I don't think there would have been the political consequences that these 25 Democrats seem to have feared...however their CYA efforts hardly warrants the extreme reaction of some, with threats to leave the party etc...
This is a guy who voted for George Allen in 2000. A guy who STILL thinks Vietnam was worth it. A guy who ranks Ronald Reagan as one of his favorite Presidents. But you think he's as liberal as you or I and thus only voted for this out of fear?
Whatever. Keep calling Webb a coward. Just like people have called me a coward for thinking the ad was stupid and irresponsible. I guess name-calling is what passes for "strength" and "guts" nowadays.
Citizen love of country isn't predicated on "love it or leave it." It is rather love it, or work to improve it. If our mere presence as place-holders in this universe is to transcend itself toward contribution, then we find ways to adapt, improve our communities, and make a difference. Citizenship also requires a blend of both optimism and realism -- optimism that better things are possible, but realism too, to guard from onslaught of depression following utter failings.by: KathyinBlacksburg
Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 17:45:22 PM EDT
These are the words of a person with passion and a brave heart.
The Washington Post, the next day after Patraeus' testimony, debunked the "facts" that we were being told in the hearing. So maybe MoveOn was just right. No person in this democracy -- Patraeus, Bush, Webb, Warner, Hillary and on and on -- deserves any better treatment than you or I do in this country.
Patraeus is a public servant just like I was.
It's time to clean house....these guys are just "go along get alongs"....while soldiers die, while people go uninsured, while the working poor get poorer, and while Africa is engulfed with AIDs. It's time to clean house.
I hope that our people will realize that the fire outside is burning even more intensely.
Personally, I haven't yet lost faith in either Webb or the Democratic Party (primarily because I know things would be one hell of alot worse had Allen won the election). However, in this instance, I think Webb and the other Democrats who joined him in this vote need to hear the opinions of their supporters, at length.
What the Republicans have done, once again and oh so successfully, is obfuscate the real issue that the country should be discussing -- the truth of Patraeus' claims and testimony on Iraq. In their usual, clever (and I give them credit because it works) way they have turned the tables back around and upside down to obfuscate the issue of Patraeus while concurrently making Democrats look bad. Clever, but I've caught on to you. So here is what has happened folks.
1. Patraeus is to testify before Congress at the long-awaited September hearings.
2. He is considered by some a hostile "witness" since he lost some of his credibility when he jumped into the political arena for Bush back in 2004 just prior to Bush's re-election.
3. MoveOn did their homework about why they thought Patraeus might "cook the books" and decided to run their ad.
4. Patraeus testifies and the media follows up with what he did and didn't say. And it doesn't look good for Patraeus and leads to a lot of discussion.
5. So now Patraeus is starting to look suspiciously partisan, if not a liar.
6. Republican Party says: "We have a problem here. Frank Luntz (or his new surrogate) is needed to the rescue."
7. Luntz' surrogate says: "One of the principles of good argument, fellow Republicans, is to put up a Straw Man (an argument different from [and weaker than] the opposition's best argument). So we need to divert attention away from Patraeus' problem by sticking a problem on MoveOn, Democrats, and liberals ....lets use George's words and call them disgusting. Hey, even better idea, lets show Americans that Democrats are wimps also....lets put up a resolution to vote on condemning MoveOn for their ad and challenge the Democrats to not vote for it. Wow, we've done it one more time. Now let's get on the talk shows and show our righteous indignation over criticizing a GENERAL.
Anyone care to talk about Patraeus' testimony?...hint, hint....Democratic Senators.
The senators could have read the GAO report. They could have scrutinized the surprisingly cogent AP tabulations of reported deaths and violent incidents in Iraq during the past year--pre and post "surge." They could have taken a quick spin through the blogosphere for charts based on previously reported numbers, including one done on on U.S. casualties at Juan Cole's behest by a helpful blogger. They could have looked at UN statistics. They could have looked at the Iraqi Government's own statistics.
But they, and their staffers, apparently did none of this kind of due diligence to prepare for the hearings. What? Did they not have enough weeks and months of forewarning to prepare? And is it so hard to caucus a half hour before a committee meeting (or conduct a conference call, or coordinate via e-mail) to divy up the questions and adopt a strategy for a committee hearing--you know, an actual agenda? Jeesh.
This performance by Democrats in Congress is so far beyond ineptness that it is beginning to look more and more like willing complicity in a kabuki performance.
So like you, Dianne, I'm fed up. No more money (not a red cent) to any Democratic Party structure. No canvassing. No dropping of pamphlets. No distributing lawn signs. No driving voters to the polls. No buying tickets for fund-raising events. Period. If they want to play the corporatist game, let the corporatists pay for it.
If genuinely engaged and progressive candidates appear on the scene and can use some help, then I'll be open to changing my mind. But for the foreseeable future, my money will go to MoveOn and the ACLU, and my time will go to pursuits other than grassroots Democratic politics.
In any case, reality on the ground--in the geopolitical arc from Algeria to Pakistan and in the financial markets (including derivatives) and underlying U.S. economy--seems poised to overwhelm Republicans and Democrats alike.
But will they even notice?
I'm a Democrat and believe in what I believe it represents: social and economic justice and opportunity.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to elect statesmen as Democrats but merely politicians. So I too will only be giving my time and money to a candidate, if one should come along, who demonstrates courage, strength, intelligence, skepticism, and leadership. I will work for a truth-seeker, one who's not afraid to speak about what's not politically expedient.
And lastly, I am looking for a candidate who can communicate to those he represents once he is elected. I'm sick of getting e-mails just once every 4 years from my state representative asking for my help and money and dead silence the other 3 years and 364 days. I'm sick of being asked to give thousands of dollars to a candidate who doesn't even bother to send a communication about what the important issues are to him and what he plans to do about them.
I can wait. I can take a breather.
I'm patient because patience is all we have now.
MoveOn voted overwhelmingly to support Bob Casey, Jr. instead of Chuck Pennacchio in last year's Democratic Senate primary race in PA. And they knew exactly the type of centrist Democrat they were voting for.
Everybody hates how politicians are beholden to special interests right? WRONG! People think that if you give a candidate time or money and they don't do want YOU want them to do, they're sellouts and back-stabbers.
Golly gee whiz, what a brave and principled stand Hillary Clinton took in voting against this....PLEASE!! People are constantly criticizing her for her "political calculations" and "triangulation". But when she panders TO THE LEFT...not a peep.
And if he did, I would feel just as slapped in the face. My anger isn't based on any propensity towards specific Democrats. In fact, what made this slight so hurtful was that it came from some of my favorites.
Conservatives have hated Move-On since Move-On punked the Clinton impeachment effort. And now they'll be able to point to anything that Move-On advocates and say, "There go those kooks again, even the Democrats agree". The Dems stuffed an effective ally, and it won't gain them a single vote. It was just a stupid move.
My response to Senator Webb and the leadership is this:
OK, wiseguys, you blew up a friendly, and strengthened your opponents resolve. What do you believe in; and what are you willing to do? I need a list, and a timetable.
I think the Democrats missed a real opportunity here to turn this one back into the GOPs face. If the GOP was THAT worried about some MoveOn ad, the Dems should have been able to attach passage of the Webb amendment as a condition of support.
I'm more ticked off that the Dems didn't negotiate a better deal. At the end of the day, most voters are going to wonder though, what the hell the Congress was wasting it's business on.
And yes, I agree with SoccerDem that this is just more evidence of the rank hypocrisy of the GOP on this issue.
I look at this whole political stunt as just another way that Republicans keep themselves busy in-between locating the next Terri Schiavo.
John F. Kennedy couldn't procrastinate more on drafting a Civil Rights bill. It would alienate the bigots that where then part of the Democratic Party.
What did Civil Rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. did about this?
They kept pressuring Kennedy to follow through, reminding him about his promise of a Civil Rights bill. But Kennedy wouldn't do it.
So King and other leaders kept pressuring him about to follow through.
It took them 3 years and many episodes of racial injustice to get Kennedy to submit a civil rights bill to Congress. 3 years of hard, frustrating work.
What is the moral of the story?
That after electing their candidate, the Civil Rights movement had to keep pressuring him for 3 years to make him follow through on his promise.
Is ending a war harder than ending legal segregation? No. The goal of the Civil Rights movement was a lot more formidable. Yet they kept pressuring Kennedy until he followed through.
Politicians are fickle, and we should expect that they will lose their way. And when they do, we must pressure them to follow through on their promise.
This last vote is annoying, but it is not significant. We must focus on how people vote on bills that will meaningfully end the war.
In Virginia, the one that we must focus on is Warner. Webb is on our side, and we shouldn't forget that. Warner knows what is right, but can't gather the courage to vote for what is right. We must pressure him to follow through and vote on the war in Congress the way he speaks about the war in public.
I always enjoy reading your comments Hugo and always look for them here. Thanks.
No, I am not happy with the status quo. And I am certainly not happy with their performance thus far.
Proposal.
Give them the votes they need to be successful in changing the course we are on. Give them the votes to act on what is right without the necessity of "deals" and "paybacks" and "cya".
Change the landscape to one where change IS possible and where they have no excuses left for not voting and/or supporting the causes we stand and fight for.
If then they don't perform it is time enough to act or begin to formulate alternative solutions.
I think most will agree, it can't be any worse and maybe, just maybe, we can move on... (absolutely no pun intended).
But now that we've worked for them (Democrats) and voted them in, it's their turn (now ours) to demonstrate political fortitude to the unconverted who might vote for them and for other Democrats in the future. We simply can't do it for them. They have to do it themselves....soon.
Although your proposal sounds good, in my opinion, it's not in our hands at the moment. The Democrats who we've elected are the ones who must demonstrate to the voters that they are strong and capable. If they understand that they will not get the support they had in the past and that we will find Democratic candidates who will show courage and stregnth, then I think you will find a change in their performance.
MoveOn says this about this resolution and vote:
"No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They're so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can't do what most Americans want -- vote to end this war."
Imagine the impact that Jim Webb could have made if he, as a military hero, had snubbed his nose at this cheap political ploy and had said "Cut out the political tap dancing. I'll not lower myself to waste my time nor the safety of the soldiers around the world in playing silly Republican political games. I insist that we talk about what is going on in Iraq and what we are being told about it by our leaders."
It's time for tough love.
We often forget that we live in a democracy. The ultimate power resides with the people. That's us. If there are enough of us making it clear that we don't approve of the war, we can overcome the money of the contractors.
We we must get organized and keep the pressure on politicians to make them follow through.
The strategy seems to be working exceptionally well.
What we seem to have is fundamentally one party--rather like the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan. In our case one faction calls itself Republican, and the other calls itself Democratic.
Each faction publicizes a few issues to motivate voters. For the Republicans the vote-getters are gay-bashing, xenophobia, racism, authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, free market social Darwinism, and military interventionism. For the Democrats the vote-getters are social welfare, civil liberties, rationality, and a balanced, rather than bellicose, foreign policy.
But for both factions it seems to be primarily the corporatists who underwrite the performance and decide what will be staged. We in the audience are compelled to watch what is offered.
The two factions, after all, do not want to allow audience participation to get out of their control.
That is why it is so important to have an organized, active citizenship because this is one of the major counterbalances to corporate money. Even with money, the ultimate power is found with the people. However, only when the people are organized can they exercise this power.
Mark Shields pointed out last night (Jim Lehrer) that the MAJORITY of Americans instinctively dislike name calling in Politics (and elsewhere) because most everyone in their life (childhood = childish) has had their name made fun of.
3 weeks later we're debating MOVE ONs childish ad instead of Blackwater for instance.
I've watch some of the Senate debates. I have great respect and admiration for the likes of Webb and Milkulski, etc.
But this thread tells me that the core of the Democratic Party is getting ready to LOSE the next Presidential Race because in general .... just like MOVE ON .....they're acting like kids.... as such the Party is not very attractive to Independents and the like I'm afraid.
Great Post though ....as it got people to really spout off and show how pissed off they are ....
To the contrary, I think we're acting like adults in asking the Senators to speak about the issues and not play into the hands of the Republican spin. That we wish to discuss it, let them know that we want them to do the peoples' busines, is acting like an adult.
The sooner Democratic Senators start understanding this and start to quit playing childish games, the sooner they will be viewed as strong and capable of running this country.
MoveOn needs to get their act together and realize they are not operating in a "progressive" vacum where they can say anything they want without consequence. If their goal is to truly move the country away from what the Republican's have made it, then they are going to have to be more politically savvy. While this stunt has certainly increased their membership rolls, it has had a detrimental effect on the effort to end the war.
The center has moved away from the right. Now it is located in the border of the 25% supporters for Bush. These are the crowd that enjoys hard attacks and grandstanding.
Making ads with this tone, to persuade this group makes sense.
I do agree with you on a big point: the reaction of our Congressional Democrats is absolutely predictable: a crowd of Emily Posts quick to give a tongue lash to their rude base. They especially are quick to do this when the easily offended Republican bores start crying about how they have been hurt.
This abdication of power to a General was Un-American. And the Dems enabled it. The Military doesn't make our foreign policy, the Civilian leadership does.
We don't have enough fighting men and women to win this dispute if we insist on blundering ahead to find a military solution. Everyone knows that but few in power say it aloud. I am old enough to remember Vietnam and involuntary conscription. One doesn't need a crystal ball to be able to see exactly where all this is heading.
They will have no choice but to either a)demoralize or kill/wound nearly every member of our volunteer armed forces or b)start a draft to fill the numbers for the insane continuation of an occupation based on? I don't even know.
Or some combination of the two.
But I totally agree that b) The Draft - is the next step. What else are they going to do when they can't even offer our troops the same amount of time at Home as they have in a combat zone?? And it's not uncommon at all to know of guys on their 3rd tour of duty already. How much more can be asked of them? It's totally nuts.
Kinda wish we had one now. I can't believe that even Bushie thinks we can "win" - he's just dumping this on the next POTUS, and he's too afraid to admit he was wrong.
Let's face it - corporate America already won this war by fleecing American taxpayers of billions for their war hungry industries. Their puppets in congress continue to do their bidding (with a few noteable exceptions).
I am a smidge disappointed in MoveOn for the name-calling, but feel it was justified. Active Duty General or not, Petraeus has not behaved as an active duty professional in the United States Armed Forces should have. His testimony was lies, obfuscations, cherry-picking of statistics, and partisan. It does not serve the American public, the constitution, nor our troops. He deserves to be called out on it, and our congress, both sides of the aisle, failed to do that. They are lemmings and they need to be held accountable.
I am extremely disappointed in Webb's vote on this Cornyn resolution; and hopefully, after he's slept on it, he'll realize how ashamed he should be of that mistake. Having said that, I am still glad we elected Jim Webb over George Allen in 2006 because I am certain Allen would have done far worse infractions... repeatedly.
We need to keep things in priority, and as Hugo so eloquently puts it above, work even harder to pressure the lemmings in congress into doing the people's will, and not the will of the war-profiteers or the neo-facists... I mean neo-cons.
Priority 1) get the neo-cons (regardless of party affiliation) out of office.
Impeach, vote them out as their terms come up, if they are found to be criminal, investigate them, charge them, and put them in prison. That applies to Democrats, Republicans, Independents... everyone in office who is guilty - though they should all get fair trials.
Priority 2) once we are done with priority 1, then we winnow out the lemmings too - and replace anyone unwilling to work for the common good.
Mistakes happen, but pols need to fess up for them, take responsibility, and then take action to amend for their errors.
That means Hillary needs to vote against continued war funding and apologise for her mistakes in voting for the war (as Edwards has).
That means Webb needs to apologize for this insulting Cornyn resolution vote and start hitting the neo-cons hard, and get us out of the war like we elected him to do.
I am angry too, not sure how Democrat I consider myself today, but I am resolved to work harder than ever before to continue making progress in recovering from the disaster that the Reagan/Bush/Bush administrations have put us in.
General Petraeus' report was not swaying public opinion about the war in Iraq. The press was pointing out its inaccuracies, and the news reports every night were a mockery of his claims of success. His testimony said Iraq was more secure, another car bombing, more deaths would be reported on the nightly TV news.
MoveOn ran an ad referring to him as Gen. Betray Us and the rightwing is off to the races hoping to divert attention from their public relations problem that nobody is buying their claims about the war. Make the issue one of insulting the troops rather than Petraeus' actual claims.
The truth is the Republican administration has done more to disrespect the troops than any ad by the progressive MoveOn. It's this administration that has fired generals, like Shinseki, for disagreeing with its policies, failed to provide adequate protection, such as body armor, for men and women on the front line, etc. But any chance they can get, these duplicitous Republican operatives will attempt to deflect criticism from themselves onto to Democrats, claiming that any criticism of them is an insult to the troops.
The Democrats, in going along with the vote on that sense of the Senate resolution, was simply trying to keep the needless and deliberate distraction from spinning out of control and get the debate back on where its real focus should be, getting our troops out of Iraq, not debating about Petraeus' name.
Of course, MoveOn was not insulting the troops. They were insulting one general, who is a public figure that issued a report riddled with inaccuracies. As such, he was fair game. And what they did was not at all unprecedented. During World War II, political opponents of Gen. Douglas MacArthur referred to him as "Dug Out Doug," and during Vietnam, critics of that war policy labeled General Westmoreland, "Gen Waste-more-land." They were not insulting the troops. And in World War II the vast majority of the public supported the war effort. But they were disparaging the judgment, whether unfairly or not, of certain leaders
It's vey much in the American grain to make fun of authority. And it's a very healthy trait that keeps us from becoming an authoritarian state. America's sharp sense of humor and its willingness to take aim at sacred cows is healthy for the nation.
And as soon as we can fit that into a 30-second sound byte we should do so. Until then, don't be so hard on Democrats who simply wanted to keep the Republicans from hijacking the discussion from the real debate over Iraq, something the Republicans have been expert at doing.
I don't agree with the Dems on the particular tactic they chose, I still support MoveON and I even like their ad. But I'm not about to provide aid and comfort to Republicans by quitting the political arena. I'd rather stay and stiffen the spines of the Democrats and afflict the comfortable Republicans.
We still need to question this General's report very closely.
April 27 (1967)
We are reaching some sort of crisis on Vietnam. LBJ has evidently decided on a quick and brutal escalation of the war. It was clear in February that he did not wish negotiation until the existing military balance could be turned considerably in our favor; and his clear intention now is to bomb North Vietnam until Hanoi is prepared to sue for peace on terms which will meet Rusk's idea of a satisfactory settlement. More than that, the administration is apparently determined to advance the proposition that dissent is unpatriotic, and has brought General Westmoreland back for this purpose.
The irony is that all of us for years have been defending the presidential prerogative and regarding the Congress as a drag on policy. It is evident now that this delight in a strong presidency was based on the fact that, up to now, all strong presidents in American history have pursued policies of which one has approved. We are now confronted by the anomaly of a strong president using these arguments to pursue a course which, so far as I can see, can lead only to disaster. It is not hard to assert a congressional role; but, given the structure of the American system, it is very hard to see how the Congress can restrain the presidential drive toward the enlargement of the war. Voting against military appropriations is both humanly and politically self-defeating. The only hope is to organize a broad political movement; and even this cannot take effect until, at the very earliest, the 1968 primaries, which may be too late.
I hope we don't have to go through as much cathartic self-destruction as a nation to get to the point that we are prepared to pull out of Iraq as we did to finally get out of Vietnam.
No one said this effort would be easy. In our line of work, there will often be more defeats than victories. That's the way life is. I for one will not miss you.
You call the resolution "trivial."
Sure, there are more important things at stake than our feelings - but this isn't about feelings. This is about Democratic REPRESENTATION. The Dems are trying to distance themselves from the very people who were instrumental in saving the party, put them in the majority, and will be instrumental in saving the country and stopping the war (when that happens). If you don't see why that's offensive, then you're making the same mistake that the Senate made. Democracy is not trivial. Positive disdain for the voters is not trivial. Siding with Republican spinsters instead of those who would call a spade a spade is not trivial. Fostering a FOX-News soundbyte instead of dismissing such nonsense and discussing policy is not trivial.
You say Move-On made a mistake.
The Senate Dems made the mistake by legitimizing the Republicans' ridiculous whining about the ad. Until then, I don't think the Dems had lost much really - now they have. Many in the Democratic Party appreciate a more confrontational, less spineless attitude when it comes to the war, among other things. No Dem will ever look strong or be effective by playing dumb for a political stooge. Move On represented those progressives who realize that and agree with a tougher, more combative, and eye-opening strategy. The only mistake was that the Senate Dems didn't stand with us.
You suggest that, because "there will be more defeats than victories," then we should continue to support representatives who don't represent us? That's "reality," and "the way life is"!!!
Well, I for one don't subscribe to your "reality" and never have. I still believe in democracy and free speech. I believe that when my Representatives do something bone-headed, then I speak up, and when they tell me (along with most of the country) to shut up, I find someone who will listen who can kick them out of office.
You say Senator Webb probably sincerely believed in the resolution.
I obviously don't know what he was thinking - but let me just say I believe he's smart enough to know the difference between challenging a White House mouthpiece and insulting the troops, and tough enough not to get his feelings hurt by a few harsh but truthful words. Moreover, I don't care if he sincerely believed in the resolution. His personal feelings aren't as important as the people he represents.
You say you won't miss those who quit the party or quit RK. Well ... losing elections sucks, and single-sided conversations are boring and pointless. But, no matter, I'm sure there are millions of yes-men who care enough about the country to vote Democratic and then keep quiet, and hundreds of people with the time and inclination to pipe in here, in agreement with whatever the Senate Dems do.
But the simple truth is that MoveOn's ad was good strategy. But so was the Democratic Senators disavowal of it.
Politics is sometimes counter-intuitive. It produces strange bedfellows and equally strange opponents.
MoveOn's ad highlighted the failings of Petraeus, whose report was suspect from the get go. Everybody knows the White House vetted it and doctored it first. The claims that Iraq is more secure were undercut by nightly news reports of new bombings and new killings.
But when the ad came out, Republicans were happy to use it to set up a new narrative that liberals and anti-war activists were insulting the military.
They set up the straw dog, introduced the sense of the Senate resolution and hoped to put the Democrats in an awkward position. Either the Democratic senators went along with it and risked the ire of their activist wing or they voted against it and subjected themselves to endless news cycles and attack ads about how they didn't support the troops.
Perhaps I've fought the good fight for too long and know too well how this stuff works. But I know that if we leave the party or even let ourselves get diverted by this meaningless resolution, we will have handed the Republicans exactly the victory they wanted.
Fight for a real majority in the Senate, not a one vote balance, and a Democratic White House, and you'll see real difference.
And learn to fight the Republicans more cleverly because they have few scruples. Most of all, don't let guerrilla tactics like these succeed. The country you lose, if you do, will be your own.
Roughly eight months ago, the soon-to-be Senior Senator from Virginia inspired at least seventy percent of the nation when he signaled that Democrats would no longer spend all of their time attempting to placate authoritarian Republican bullies. That Senator promised the country that if Bush chooses a new direction, we will join him, but, if not, "we will be showing him the way."
Isn't it time to stop placating Republican bullies and start showing them the way?
We've all said it here -- the Democratic Senators look weak, indecisive, pandering, and politically motivated. I live in a Republican area of Virginia where educated folks use these descriptions of Democrats every chance they get.
The problem isn't MoveOn, nor the Republicans political maneuvers, nor us here complaining about it. To say that is passing the buck, making excuses, trying to cover up the obvious and playing the psychological game of slapping an undesirable problem/trait off on someone else. In this case, the Democratic Senators and their leaders pandered. It was their action that has caused this uproar.
MoveOn, the Republicans, and a dissatisfied electorate will be around until kingdom come. We worked for the Democrats, voted for them, and now they are being paid to do the people's business. I'll not stand for any less.
So I think it's high time we quit tiptoeing around and insist that Senator Webb give us an explanation (and it better not be a political one) just why he participated in this MoveOn condemnation vote. Then we need to tell him that caving like this makes him and other Democrats look weak. We need to remind him that convincing Independents that we are strong, unified and willing to put our political career at risk to do the right thing is our goal. We need their vote. Now we need to convince Independents it's worth voting for us.
I'd like to use Bubby's words from above and address them to our Senator: What do you believe in; and what are you willing to do? I need a list, and a timetable.
Senator?
It is all very nice and certainly was cause to celebrate but it can not get the job done.
The words here are can not. Not will not. CAN NOT.
It was a start, nothing more. Until we have the power to stop the filibusters and over-ride the inevitable vetoes we have nothing but a bottom tier position of negotiation.
I don't want a foot in the door, I want a clear and controlling majority in the whole damn House (and Senate). As angry as I am over these stupid ineffectual maneuverings, quitting now doesn't get us where we need to be.
Where we MUST be to save our Constitution, our country and ourselves.
Instead of voting at all, why didn't the Democrats stand strong together as a block and make a statement at a press conference (and I believe it would have gotten a lot of press if they all stood together) that they were going to do the people's business by trying to find a way out of the mess George Bush has gotten the country in and were going to try to work for the troops because they respect and support them instead of wasting their time voting on this clearly political resolution. They should have said that they were just abstaining from the entire affair because it was beneath the dignity of the Senate when there are lives at stake in this war every hour of everyday.
D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
I was speaking about this particular issue we're discussing. I was trying to say that it's up to the Senators (on this issue) to fix this problem.
I'd never advocate not working for Democrats, but as I said before, I'll be being much more careful about who I'll work for and who I give money to. I want representatives who will act and vote for progressive, Democratic, liberal principles.
Don't promise me one thing and do another.
I don't like MoveOn. I wish the organization would, in fact, move on. I'd prefer that Democrats handle this thing with people like Jim Webb and Harry Reid rather than a bunch of unpredictable, kamikazee guys who don't realize the terrible effects of some of the things they do on the candidates they support (cough cough Phil Kellam). I think MoveOn is dangerous. I've never given them a cent, and I never will.
General Petraeus works for US, for you and me. The military is under civilian control. The President is not MY Commander in Chief, because I am not in the military. He also works for me, and for you. And he should be held accountable, as should Petraeus. If he's wrong, he should be replaced, the sooner the better. We shirk the responsibilities of citizenship when we demand any less than that. OR when we allow our elected representatives to settle for any less than that.
As Connie points out, we do not have time. While we argue, the Republicans are beating the drums of a new war against IRAN. These are very dangerous times, for fundamental freedoms and for the safety of our nation. A draft is the inevitable next step. We all owe a duty to do whatever we can to fix these problems, IMMEDIATELY, and to stop the political posturing and internal disagreements.
MARK SHIELDS: I think it's an embarrassment to the United States Senate that they cannot decide anything about Iraq. They can't come to any conclusion, and they can stand up there and berate an ad, which I found and have said was, I thought, tasteless and counterproductive.First of all, Americans do not like to have people's names made fun of. Everybody has had the experience, him or herself at one time, having their own name made fun of. And to do it in this unflattering, unfair fashion was beyond the pale.
But for Republicans who've been on the defensive, put in a defensive crouch on Iraq, been pummeled about the shoulder and head, now all of a sudden they can come out and they can go on the offensive. And, my goodness, now they're not going to ever let go of it. They're just going to continue.
The Democrats -- I agree with Rich on this point, Jim. The Democrats should have taken a leaf out of Ronald Reagan's playbook. Ronald Reagan, when he was running for governor of California, the big issue -- some big issue, we always have big issues -- was the John Birch Society and whether Reagan would accept their support or their endorsement.
Reagan had a very simple, straightforward statement: I welcome the support of all law-abiding, freedom-loving Californians, because anybody who endorses me doesn't mean I have endorsed them. And they should have done the same thing.
You know, I welcome the support. That does not mean I'm endorsing MoveOn. That is not my platform; that is not my party. But, quite frankly, they did -- enough of them didn't do it well.
"I commend MoveOn for their ad and for speaking truth to power," said Stark. "Up is not down, the earth is not flat, and the surge is not working. General Petreaus betrayed his own reputation by standing with George Bush in opposition to the timely withdrawal of all of our brave men and women from Iraq. I thank MoveOn for their patriotic ad and call on Petreaus to help Bush end a war the President should have never started." - California Congressman Pete Stark
I think this was a necessary and useful discussion for all of us. And, I do hope those whose frustration with the Democratic Party has boiled over into outrage will, at some point, decide to maintain some level of involvement.
We have the flawed team of Boucher, Webb, and Warner. The First TN congressional delegation is 100% Republican Stay-the-Coursers. That has not discouraged them from organizing and working to end the war. It should encourage you to get back to work.
Although this discussion provided a good ventilation and demonstrated the depth of passion many have to end the war, the stupid condemnation of MoveOn should not be the reason any one of us stops doing whatever he or she has been doing (supporting MoveOn, demanding Webb and Boucher start acting to defund the war, doing local Democratic or peace organizing) to stop this war.
We've nursed your wounds. We can't afford to pause till we shut this war down, so get back to work.
Yesterday on "Late Edition" with the Wolf she said " She will not vote for a funding bill till it has a time line".
Well one leader in the Senate has taken a stance. How many others will follow?
I could go on and on with other sports analogies, but I think I made my point.
MJW
From reading all the comments, I see it this way.
There are --
1. Those who believe that the Democratic Senate and its leadership have not used their voice and power forcefully enough to stand up to the Republican's tricks and ploys that obfuscate the facts and make Democrats look bad. These commenters believe that by playing into the hands of the Republicans, Democrats look weak, fractured, disorganized, unified, and cowardly and that view of us could hurt us at the polls. (This is how I feel but others have made suggestions as to what the Senators could have done, which I think makes good political sense: ?a) openly, forcefully, and with righteous indignation state (on the steps of the Capitol if necessary) that this is a democracy which includes free speech and that freedom will never be condemned by the very institution that protects it and b) that Republicans are playing politcal games and c) Democrats are doing the people's work.)
2. Those who believe that MoveOn has caused this current problem. (As I said in one of my comments, MoveOn, Republicans, and an unhappy electorate will be with us until kingdom come and Democrats better accept and learn to manage the fact that democracy includes free speech. You can't keep making excuses and blaming someone else for your failure to handle a situation.)
3. Those who believe that we should support the Democratic Senators on this issue; that this no difference in the scheme of things. (The issue is just not that important and really makes polls tell us that the approval of Congress is at an all time low...and hey guys we are in the majority and that's what the public understands. You should probably accept the fact that the average voter probably doesn't understand "filibuster vote requirements" and the number of votes needed to overturn a Bush veto. They understand that they voted for Democrats to end the war and that means standing up to Republicans and standing strong as a DEMOCRAT.)
4. Those who just can't stand to stomach supporting Democrats (writing diaries anymore)when the Democrats seem to be playing political games at a time like this. (One commenter said that soccerdem couldn't realistic expect his/her desires to be supported 100% of the time. From reading soccerdem's diary, I don't think that he/she said that at all. Soccerdem said: I am aware of what politics entails, of the necessary compromises one must make in order to gain objectives for the overall good, as you define it. But this goes too far. ...referring to the Dems actions as "cowardly compromise".
5. Those who think that unless elected Democrats listen and understand that we are asking for them to act and not play, that we will look for candidates that will act.
Did I miss any? Will this Raising Kaine diary raise the conscience of our Democratic Senators to figure out how they can handle situations like this when they happen again? .... because I GUARANTEED they will happen again!
BTW, how are Democratic messages handled nationally? Do we have a centralized, guided "message/response center"?
That said, we can't let the Republicans divide and conquer us. We can't quit, and we can't alienate people - centrists, progressives, libertarians, or independents, who want to vote Democratic. This doesn't mean abandon our values (or our base) - it means keep the door open and trust the voters with what should be a very obvious choice: substance versus theater, competence versus pipe dreams, intelligence versus delusion.
With this incident, both the Senate and the activists took the bait. The Senate shouldn't have passed the resolution, and the activists shouldn't quit over it, and, most importantly, the resulting discussion of policy and strategy between moderates and progressives - an important one to have - can't devolve into a winner-take-all match ending in our quitting or slamming the door on other people. We don't have that luxury.
What I think we should do INDIVIDUALLY is take a deep breath, don't get demoralized, don't waste energy cannibalizing one another, continue to have this discussion in a civil way, and keep our eyes on the prize.
As for the SENATE, I hope they learn from these fiascos, and next time aren't so quick to play into the Republicans' hands. A message-response center would be good, but we can't keep Democrats on message until they agree with the message - we're not a lockstep party. We just have to keep lobbying them on these issues, and insisting that playing offense is better than defense, and that "righteous indignation" to Republican attacks on our patriotism is not only strategically better, but is morally justified. We have the moral high ground, and so we have no business apologizing to the Republicans for a damn thing. Hopefully we'll get through to our representatives eventually.
The Republican leadership has a spine, but is utterly clueless.
The Democratic leadership has a clue, but is utterly spineless.
The country really need leadership with both a spine and a clue:
--before the Constitution and our civil rights are shredded beyond repair,
--before the U.S. military is stretched and corrupted to the point of general collapse,
--before the neocons maneuver us into a pointless and catastrophic "preemptive" war against Iran,
--before the broken health-care system becomes even more dysfunctional,
--and before the systematic looting of the economy by the Big Boys via speculative bubbles in the securitized mortgage industry and in assorted derivatives "casino" markets plunges us into a severe recession--or worse.
We really need national political figures possessing both spines and clues to step forward.
Right now.
Not next year. Not January, 2009.
If we have to wait that long, we will very likely be overwhelmed, both geopolitically and economically, by accelerating events on the ground, here and abroad.
And given the corporatist money that the Republicans can bring into play and the palpably hapless performance by the Democratic leadership of Congress, the Democratic Party should not be too confident of an inevitable victory in 2008. A bland John Kerry style of above-the-fray campaign could well fall short of defeating a pit bull Republican candidate with ample financing.
If faced with a choice of clueless versus spineless, the voters seem inclined to wrinkle their noses and pull the lever for clueless.
Out here in the reality-based universe, the public mood is become uglier by the month. The Democratic leadership just does not seem notice or care. It certainly does not seem to know how to take advantage of that public mood to stiff-arm Republican diversions and pursue a genuinely progressive agenda.
And so, week after predictable week, the Democratic leadership appears to be weak. It looks as though the next cave-in will be on funding for the continuing occupation of Iraq. Or perhaps it will be feeble Democratic acquiescence in the neocon/Cheney/Addington strategy to launch yet another "splendid little war," this time against Iran.
A vote for hate crime legislation might cause a liberal-minded Democrat his office in Alabama, and he must choose whether to be a decent individual or lose his future lobbying income when he retires from the House. I can understand this, too.
I can understand how the Democratic officeholders might compromise by letting a tax cut go through if some extra dough is shifted to, say, Social Security by raising the cutoff point on taxable earnings.
All the above are reasonably voted on, for or against, because of the probable or certain consequences of their action--they may keep their seat, they may lose it, they may incur a tax cut which makes their constituents unhappy but which they can explain away in practical terms.
BUT, when a vote arises as to whether a medium such as MOVE ON should be chastised for exposing the utter crapola advanced by a military person--in this case, a General, a NAY vote leads to NO MATERIAL quantifiable consequences. Our troops lose no bullets or armor (if they had enough). Their mission goes on uninterrupted (kick in doors, drive down the road in convoys--get those lobsters to the Emerald City). Further, The Democrats who vote YEA WILL STILL be considered by the Red states as traitors, weak on defense and morals, probably the type of Democrat who lured Craig into the toilet and beat a confession out of him. So why not vote for free speech, then, and shout NAY?
Was it a reading of history that made the Democrats concede the point, and thereby look, once again, like spineless beings? Had they read that the first time an American hero-General was attacked by the liberal thinking citizens, the Press, in turn, trashed them? As was written, "How dare they attack our Hero's veracity, a General who almost single-handedly is winning this war of independance for our people?" The writer continued: "It is only those liberal-minded who would dare try to bring down the noble Benedict Arnold." See. You just don't attack a General; they are Olympians to the true believers.
And, not to belabor the point, we know the mess that generals made of the Peloponesian War, our Civil War, WW1, the Korean War, and Viet Nam, the lies constantly told and which were not to be questioned.
MOVE ON is a breath of fresh air: it gave courage to the cowering, it started the vocal discourse that was lacking concerning not only the war but the general outlook of the country, as well, and it gave CATHARSIS. It seems to me absurd to grovel because of a title they used in a legitimate argument, and allow the Right to switch the debate into a Monty Python skit.
In closing, I leave these points:
1. I will remain a Democrat and vote a party ticket almost all the time. Beyond a local election, I would never, never change.
2. I fully believe that this vote shifted the emphasis on whether Petraeus lied (or cherry picked or exaggerated) to whether we dare attack or even question a high officer's truthfulness (in this, the U.S. of A!). Screw free speech.
Petraeus said 2 years ago that the Iraquis were trained and ready to go--all B.S. Rummy said the same even earlier--300,000 trained, Rummy said. Petraeus, 210,000 ready to go.
3. The Democrats once again lost the chance to be seen as controlling the argument; instead they are now portrayed as the wimps.
4. The Presidential race may be closer than one thinks, with the Post reporting that in many key areas the vote is very close--a generic Dem does better than Hillary against the Republicans. This is not the time for Dems to look weak, rediculous or waffle-like.
5. Don't believe Warner or others of the Right who have a history of waffling, like Warner. I KNEW he wouldn't support Webb, I would have bet the farm on it.
6.Thanks for the responses. It was something I would never have expected.