Excellent idea (4.00 / 2)

I called Senator Diane Feinstein's office and was told her policy is to have a definite withdrawal date: I was pointed to the following comment on her website:

"Iraq: U.S. forces were sent to Iraq as liberators. But conditions have changed. Today, our forces are caught in the crossfire of bloody sectarian violence. The time has come to declare that our time has come - and gone - in Iraq. That is why I believe that we should put an expiration date (December 31, 2007) on the authorizatoin of the President's use of force in Iraq, redefine the mission in Iraq, and require the President to return to Congress if he wishes to renew the resolution."

I called Senator Barabara Boxer's office and was told that she does NOT have a position about a definite timetable, which surprised me since she has been very good on the issue. I expressed my wish that she insist on such a timetable. I also emailed her to ask if she has made or can make a more definitive statement.

I called Representative Barbara Lee who is a co-founder of the "Out of Iraq Caucus" and the only member of Congress to vote against the original bill supporting Bush taking action to prepare for war in Iraq. So I have little doubt that she is fighting for our position but I wanted to get a more official statement. I was transferred to her press person and left a message to be called back.

I think your idea is an excellent one to get every member of Congress on record and then to start pressuring the waverers.

---

by: BerkeleyMike @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 13:21:57 PM CDT

Withdrawal date/deauthorization sounds good, but... (4.00 / 1)

...they both need legislation to pass Congress for them to have effect.

We know that no such legislation will pass the Senate under present circumstances, and that Bush will veto it if by some miracle it did.

One can't be absolutely certain that commitments such as Feinstein's are intended to deceive less clued-up voters. After all, she doesn't actually say that her proposal has any chance of success - just that that's what she's proposing.

Lots of things pols propose have no chance of coming to fruition...

(As previously advertised, the only way to stop the war is by not sending Bush a funding bill he will sign.

How many MCs would commit on the record to even considering such a course? At a rough guess - none.)

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 14:08:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am certainly sceptical of Congress too, BUT (0.00 / 0)

I that is why we need to make this kind of effort to try to make them accountable, which I think is probably a long-term process. I know from experience that Diane Feinstein is very subject to constituent pressure. I have been part of phone-calling campaigns a number of time in which she has changed her tune in response to massive numbers of phone calls. One of these involved her going from definitively saying that fillibuster was not the way in regards to either the Alito or Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court(I don't remember which) to then voting against cloture after receiving thousands of phone calls. I don't trust her to do the right thing on her own but she does seem to with sufficient pressure.

I think you are wrong about members of Congress not being willing to refuse to send Bush a funding bill. The "Out of Iraq Caucus" (see http://democracyrisi...) certainly has members who take such a course. A number of them refused to vote for the funding bill that did include language calling for withdrawal because they felt it was not binding enough (I know that at least Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters voted against it for that reason).

---

by: BerkeleyMike @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 14:24:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK - 'none' was hyperbolic! (0.00 / 0)

But - my guess would be, not many of the Caucus would favor the send no bill strategy.

Going back, there's a Hill piece from March 14 previewing the vote on HR 1591 in the full Apps Committee:

Of the 37 Democratic members of the committee, 12 are from the Out of Iraq Caucus. That means if they all defect, and Republicans stick together, the bill would fail. Such a vote would also likely be viewed as a major blow to Democratic leadership.

Never happened, of course - Pelosi was putting a little pressure on!

But that was then - this is now.

I'm certainly not suggesting that putting MCs on the spot on Iraq is a waste of time. Far from it: the more we can pin them down, the better idea we'll have of what the balance of forces is among Dem MCs, what angles to take to exploit weak points, all that jazz.

But - we also need to recognize that anything short of send no bill is the equivalent of a nonbinding resolution (remember those? weren't the 60s fun...). 

The Dems voting against HR 1591 on passage were:

BARROW GA-12
BOREN OK-2
DAVIS TN-4
KUCINICH OH-10
LEE CA-9
LEWIS GA-5
MARSHALL GA-8
MATHESON UT-2
MCNULTY NY-21
MICHAUD ME-2
TAYLOR MS-4
WATERS CA-35
WATSON CA-33
WOOLSEY CA-6

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 15:09:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It needs to come up for a vote, that's all (0.00 / 0)

At least for now.  The Dems need to make the R's vote on the record for Bush (or not) over and over.  This idea that the Dems have to know going in that they will win or they won't even bring it up for a vote is just plain stupid politics.  You don't demonstrate toughness by being afraid to lose; you demonstrate it by standing for something even if it does not yet have a majority, particularly where a majority of constitutents support that position.

The Dem leadership just does not comprehend the concept of the "strategic loss," or its flip side, the "Phyrric victory."  Sometimes losing sharpens the lines for the next fight; at the very least it gives fodder for campaign commercials.  Sometimes winning costs the other side so much that in the end it really isn't worth it.  Forcing Bush to lean on the Congressional GOPers over and over, forcing them to defend the indefensible, is how an eventual majority can be built, even a veto-proof one.  Or a solid Dem Congress in 2008.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 15:08:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but (0.00 / 0)

Good point: Pelosi could fashion a bill with a strong(ish) text on Iraq withdrawal which both GOP and Dogs would combine to defeat. The vote's on the record.

Then what? Unless the Dems go with the send no bill option, the House is going to have to pass a bill which Bush will sign.

Presumably, like HR 2206, it'll be another bill that she will rely on the GOP to pass for her.

And another bill opposed by the majority of the majority.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 15:30:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ride 'em hard and put 'em up wet (0.00 / 0)

In addition how about participating in some demonstrations, too?  There are a number of groups calling for actions in September.  If Open Left's core group accepts this approach, please say so.  I will supply a list, if you aren't already aware of such plans.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

---

by: paul spencer @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 14:08:35 PM CDT

It's an excellent start (0.00 / 0)

And it's good to start this earlier rather than later.

The last thing we want is for the Bush dogs to get the idea the base is too busy enjoying the summer to notice their vote on this, or something.

Putting the pressure on early before they come out supporting funding, prevents them from having to backtrack on prior statements.  Easier to influence someone who hasn't publicly made up their minds rather than getting them to reverse a course once announced.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 15:24:15 PM CDT

BIG MISTAKE (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry Chris but you're making a BIG MISTAKE on this, just as you did in February when you supported the awful Murtha Plan.

Netroots activists need to take a crucial lesson from Bush and "not negotiate with ourselves." We need to stake out the position we strongly believe in, not the "compromise" position. Trust me, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know how to compromise all too well and don't need our help.

In July, the 70 most anti-war Members of Congress sent a letter to Bush telling him "we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office."

Democrats.com and Progressive Democrats of America are forming a coalition to persuade the rest of the Democrats in Congress to join those 70 in taking the "Peace Pledge." Our petition is here:
http://www.democrats...

The "Peace Pledge" is an updated version of the Lee Amendment that the strongest anti-war groups supported during the Supplemental battle in May, and its authors are Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Lynn Woolsey, the leaders of the Progressive Caucus and the Out Of Iraq Caucus.

OpenLeft should help us build the broadest possible netroots/DC coalition for the "Peace Pledge." If we can get 10-20-30 more House Democrats on board, we will have tremendous leverage within the House for a final bill that actually ends the war.

---

by: bob fertik @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 16:11:39 PM CDT

Fascinating! (0.00 / 0)

I'd entirely failed to register the letter, which is pretty clear.

(Except it doesn't promise to vote against a supplemental bill not fulfiling its criterion - but that's understood, I assume.)

So - tf she tries to go beyond the HR 2206 charade provisions on withdrawal, Pelosi may be left in the ghastly position that her bill draws the opposition of the July 19 reps (and those that join them) because it doesn't go far enough, and that of the Dogs and GOP because it goes too far.

It's one way to make sure Bush doesn't get a funding bill, but not one likely to commend itself to a Speaker!

Perhaps this was the intention of the July 19 letter and the follow-up.

Certainly, it was time for the Progs to strike back, and I can see how this might be the way.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 16:36:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Future Senator Tom Allen (D-ME) "Took a Stand" last night (0.00 / 0)

@U/Maine, in Orono; on exactly this topic (TMB-related thread embedded).

The event could have easily gone on for an additional hour (Tom and his staffers commuted up from Portland; and Collins resides in Bangor; which is less than five mi. from U/Maine).

Ahem.

Send Tom some love, folks--Collins is a 'costly' commodity, in many respects (and no--she is not "moderate"; and spews the word 'bipartisan' as often as is possible these days).

Thanks~

mainefem

---

by: mainefem @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 18:05:54 PM CDT

Whip it (0.00 / 0)

Whip it Good

now whip it.
into shape.
shape it up.
get straight.
go forward.
move ahead.

---

by: Andrew C White @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 19:28:24 PM CDT