Going to the Mattress: A Good First Step

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 12:37


Make sure you check out Glenn Greenwald's excellent piece, Recovering From the Bush Legacy, immediately below this article--Chris

Of all the articles written about the Senate Iraq debate last night, this headline from the Baltimore Sun is my favorite:

On Iraq vote, Senate goes to the mattresses

Two of the biggest problems Democrats have faced as a party over the past three decades is, first, a general sense that they do not stand for anything and, second, a general sense that they are not "tough." The combination of these two image problems is the notion that Democrats are not fighters-specifically that they won't fight for "you" or for ordinary Americans. There is a sense that Democrats care (source), but that they are not tough enough to stand up for what they say and turn that caring into legislation that will help Americans. To put it another way, Democrats mean well, but they can get the job done?

More in the extended entry, including an update on another bold new move by Reid.

Chris Bowers :: Going to the Mattress: A Good First Step
Last night's Senate debate was a good step in the direction of demonstrating Democratic resolve, and their willingness to fight. Senate Democrats literally went to the mattresses to fight Republican intransigence on Iraq, and their efforts on that front are now the top story in America. This is exactly the sort of perception that Democrats have been lacking for many years, and which has slowly been reinforced during our six months in the majority. To what lengths will Democrats go to fight for their beliefs? Most people probably do not think they will go very far, and will back down at the first sign of Republican opposition. However, if Democrats continue to employ this tactic, most people probably won't think that anymore, because a lengthy, all-night debate is not just a symbolic fight, but also a physical one. It takes stamina and physical willpower to argue about Iraq late into the night, and by engaging this fight Democrats showed they are willing to stand up to Republicans, and go toe to toe with them. By moving from the symbolic to the physical, it is possible to develop an image of toughness, backbone and true grit.

However, doing this once is not enough. During his three years as Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid has shown a willingness to engage in occasional grand acts such as this, or the Senate shutdown in November 2005. The thing is, the occasional grand act can quickly slide down the memory hole if it is not followed up. Now, Senate Democrats need to do this every single time Republicans block one of our central pieces of legislation via filibuster. The key is to show America that you are willing to engage the fight time and time again. You have to show that you mean to defend the ideas you propose, and that you will indeed go to the mattress with the opposition when they obstruct you from achieving those goals. Further, if Republicans still don't crack after we pull a few of these all-night debates, start forcing debates over two days. Keep upping the ante. If they won't back down, they you have to show that you will not back down either. If they intend to make blocking every piece of legislation you propose their central strategy for the 110th Congress, then you have to show you are willing to make a physical, lengthy fight to pass that legislation your central strategy.

This is a good first step, but this cannot become simply a one-time event. There is no way we can lose regular, all-night debates on issues like Iraq or health care if we are willing to continuously engage those debates. Not only is popular opinion on our side on these issues, but we will improve our image as fighters, as a party that stands for something and is willing to defend it. Further, Republicans will show just how willing they are to defend wildly unpopular ideas. This is the best possible way to advertise the difference between the two parties that I can think of, and we have to keep employing it until either Republicans crack on key pieces of legislation, or until new elections come and wipe even more Republicans out of office. Keep pressing our advantage, and keep showing our willpower. Hold the differences of the two parties up to the light for all Americans to see. This is a path toward an improved Democratic party, and to an enormous Democratic majority in 2008 and beyond. We must continue to pursue it.

Update: It looks like Reid is indeed ready to up the ante. In response to the Republican filibuster on Iraq, he has now set aside the Department of Defense authorization bill:

I have temporarily laid aside the Defense Authorization bill and have entered a motion to reconsider.

But let me be clear to my Republican colleagues - I emphasize the word "temporarily". We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to complete consideration of a Defense Authorization bill. We must do both.

And just to remind my Republican colleagues - even if this bill had passed yesterday, its provisions would not take effect until October.

So we will come back to this bill as soon as it is clear we can make real progress. To that end, I have asked the Democratic Whip and Democratic Manager of the bill to sit down with their counterparts to work on a process to address all outstanding issues related to this bill so the Senate can return to it as soon as possible.

More of this please. Let's keep pushing the envelope here.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why we fight (4.00 / 11)
No one, not even a demanding leftist such as myself, expects the Democrats to win every fight.  I can count, including  being able to count the always too large number of those who truly are Democrats in name only.  But what I do expect is that every fight be fought.  Even if you don't win, by fighting now one lays the political, intellectual and philosophical foundation for returning to that fight later at a more advantageous time.  However, when a party fails to even make the effort of a genuine fight, it sends a message to all time that there is no basis for this fight, that it is something that either is not worth fighting for or that cannot be fought for. 

Failure to fight isn't only a defeat of the moment, it is the defeat for years, perhaps even generations to come.  And those who need that fight fought, whose interests and persons are directly affected by the issue at hand, what message does it send to them?  That they do not matter, that it is entirely possible that in the whole of their lifetimes they will not matter to this country and its government.  When by failing to fight on behalf of a base constituency, the Democratic leadership may consider taht "canny political maneuvering", but when you tell a base constituency  that you may never represent their interest, exactly then how do you ensure they are not rendered so disillusioned as to drop out of the political system altogether.  (Ever wonder how it comes to be that American voter participation is so low?)  You cannot go out to every individual member of that base constituency and browbeat them with lesser of two evils arguments, and even if you could you still cannot force them into the booth on election day.  Negative motivation only carries one so far.  Failure to fight has political consequences far beyond the issue of the moment.

Iraq Moratorium Day


Great comment (4.00 / 3)
Wow, really good and well put. Not fighting hard--at least not fighting hard in public--does indeed have serious, negative ramifications for the future. And, like you said, it isn't about winning every fight--that won't ever happen. It is about showing you play to win in every fight. Not only will that help us in future fights, but it will also help us in terms of self-esteem, and in the voting booth. Great stuff.

[ Parent ]
Dead On (4.00 / 2)
If one only fights when one thinks they can win, it doesn't say much about one's principles.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
On Not Standing Up (4.00 / 7)
There is a sense that Democrats care (source), but that they are not tough enough to stand up for what they say and turn that caring into legislation that will help Americans.

This was epitomized in Florida 2000, when Gore wouldn't even stand up for black voting rights, to put himself in the White House.  Indeed, it went further than that: Jesse Jackson was told to stop organizing protests against black voter suppression and ballot invalidaiton.  If Gore wouldn't stand up for blacks when his own political fate was so deeply, directly and immediately entwined with theirs, then when would he ever stand up for them?

To this day, most white Democrats don't realize that the suppression and invalidation of the black vote in Florida--from felon lists to traffic stops, to misleading ballot instructions, and more--was the major factor in stealing the election. The numbers involved were significantly larger than the ~18,000 "Jews for Buchanan" of butterfly ballot fame.

So yes, the failure to stand up even to save their own skins has been duly noted for a long, long time.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


So true (0.00 / 0)
If we won't fight for ourselves, how can we be trusted to fight for others?

With that said, I like the direction Reid is going here. I hope he keeps it up.

[ Parent ]
Why they don't fight. (4.00 / 1)
I think much of this unwillingness to fight is, (I hesitate to say because it's becoming overused conventional wisdom to say) because of a lack of progressive infrastructure to do so.  As Mike Lux pointed out, Democrats weren't standing up for Clinton because none of the liberal institutions were doing so either.

Building more progressive institutes that are willing to help the democrats fight.  It will pressure the willy-nilly-hesitant Democrats to fight, as well as inject confidence into the Democrats who want to fight, but are too afraid of Karl Rove's shadow to do so. 

We're making a lot of progress on this part and think this is a manifestation of that progress.  VoteVets.org, AAEI, and the Progressive States Network are just a few recently(recent in terms of other political institutions) formed organizations pushing for an end to the our Occupation in Iraq.


[ Parent ]
Both And (0.00 / 0)
I'm all for building progressive infrastructure, and this is one more reason why.

But it doesn't excuse the lack of individual backbone.  We need both the infrastructure development and the spinal replacement therapy.

Inidividually, spinal replacement is usually best accopmlished with a whole new body attached.  But there are many fine and courageous Dems in Congress already who simply need backup, so they know their acts of courage will resonate and inspire, rather than coming across as futile, silly and self-defeating.  These are the folks, like George Miller or Pat Leahy, who have all the guts and fire they need, but also the sober judgement to want to be deadly effective.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
CNN on the other hand (0.00 / 0)
Not so great with the framing:

Few stay the night for Senate 'nonsense'

"It was a sound defeat for Democrats"

"while a handful of their colleagues took turns droning on through the night"

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.


Oy (0.00 / 0)
Arrgghhhh. Yes, that was bad. Just keep pushing anyway.

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
At least there's something for them to cover.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Not Just Fighting on the Floor (0.00 / 0)
The CNN framing demonstrates that it's not enough to fight the good fight on the floor. There also needs to be a sophisticated media strategy in place to shape the interpretation of the fight. Absent that, a noble fight that stirs the blood of activists can be interpreted as a hopeless defeat by casual consumers of the MSM.

[ Parent ]
That's the ideal (0.00 / 0)
Failing that, a savaging of any MSM organs that continue to peddle this kind of line. Ideally we want to be able to put forward a coherent media strategy. But until we have that, we should be copying the right wing strategy of making the media scared to get on our bad side.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
The Democrats' choices are... (4.00 / 1)
  1. Fight hard for what they stand for, and have CNN call them ineffective losers.

  2. Capitulate to the Republicans on every issue, and have CNN call them ineffective losers.

  Since the Democrats are going to get negative coverage either way, there's no cost to standing up for themselves. Apparently Harry Reid is beginning to awaken to this realization. Let's hope he follows up.

  And the Democrats need to learn to trust the public a little more, which, as Jack Murtha famously observed, is way ahead of Washington on Iraq (if not every other issue). The public can see through the MSM spin better than we think -- the Dems won in 2006 despite unremittingly negative coverage in the media.

  The best way to gain a reputation for toughness is by BEING tough. I hope Harry Reid and the Dems have finally taken note of this.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
There's no reason (4.00 / 1)
That Dems can't fight the good fight while also being media savvy. No reason at all.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
Bad Consultants and it's a waste if we can't win (4.00 / 2)
The Senate chamber was empty, eeeempty, during the debate of the IWR when Senator Bryd famously stated 'why are these halls empty?'  Yeah, why were they empty?  Trying to stop the IWR was a lost cause?  Inserting 160,000 troops and another 100,000 contracts into Iraq is the lost cause.  Once that train leaves it takes 1000 times the effort to get it back to the station and Byrd was one of the few Senators to understand this. 

and these bad, horrible, stupid consultants that say things like letting the GOP filibuster the Defense bill is a waste of time because you will lose anyway.  Lose. Anyway?  No, the 542 soldiers that have died since the surge began have lost.  Their families have lost.  Democracy has lost.  The surge is the exact opposite of what the American people voted for in November because President Bush can't stand to lose.  He couldn't stand losing in 2000 that's why he sent he goons to Florida to start rigging the re-count when the vote filtering by Choicepoint didn't do the job.  So Bush came up with the surge in the idiotic notion that it would crush the insurgency or somehow curtail the violence to an 'acceptable' level.  Well, Mr. 26%, you're a genius.  If and when there is another terrorist attack in the US which will not only blow up innocent Americans but the stupid talking point that we have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here, don't count on the American people to 'rally' to your support.  If you crack 50%, I'll be surprised. 
The GOP filibuster helped do several things:
-show Democrats the collusion the Mainstream media has with the GOP talking points.  Note how the GOP filibuster turned into Democratic theatrics
-highlight to the public the GOP's hypocrisy when it comes to critisizing the president and not voting for cloture. 
-demostrate to the public the democrats resolve to work towards ending the war.

Clearly, this will come down to the funding.  And with Bush ready to veto all the bills that come to his desk unless they have exactly the language Karl Rove approves, it's important that the ante be upped.  The GOP backed off in May because they needed the money.  Now Bush is going to try and veto everything in an attempt to blame the Democrats for money running out.  But the playing field has shifted and with steps like these, it will continue to shift until Bush has no choice but to sign.


After DoD Reauth is set aside . . . (0.00 / 0)
Chris, this is great, but the fight continues even after the DoD reauthorization is set aside.

Word is that the Higher Education Access Act will be brought up in its place, and Ben Nelson and some other Democrats are looking to take $3 billion in aid away from students and give it back to the corporate lenders.

I diaried it here, and I'm waiting on some folks for a list of all the Democrats that are in support of the Nelson-Burr Amendment or waivering.  We've got to get them voting yes on the bill and no on the amendment.

Youth To Power: How Today's Young Voters Are Building Tomorrow's Progressive Majority


Trying to understand what just happened (4.00 / 1)
So before the bill I was arguing that a 30 hour debate didn't mean much by itself, and that if the 30 hour debate was followed up by just saying, well, that was fun, let's give up and go home now, that would just be seen as another defeat for the Democrats-- my argument was that the Republicans would not take Reid seriously until such time as he actually let the Republicans hold a full filibuster and then defeated that filibuster, and a one-night argument is not a full filibuster.

After reading the "update", however, here's what I understand the new situation as being. Please let me know if there's anything I've got wrong:

* Reid is following up this 30-hour debate by voluntarily laying aside Reid-Levin.

* However, he is not dropping Reid-Levin; rather, he is simply putting the entire consideration of the Defense authorization bill on hold because Reid-Levin is not passing.

* In the meantime, he is announcing that he is willing to accept the idea there are valid concerns with the construction of Reid-Levin, and wants to work with the Republicans to come up with a version that comes as close as possible to something they'd accept; moreover he is sending clear signals that this fight will return before october-- a time suspiciously close to this magical "september" point at which everyone has been saying everything is going to change.

* So, the overall upshot is this: This was not a filibuster. This is not going to be overwhelmingly presented in the press as a win for the Democrats. However, it was overall a very good thing because it sends a message, for once in a way the Republicans actually have to listen to. Although not being a filibuster, this was a message from Reid that he is no longer going to be putting up with filibusters. Reid was telling McConnell, this is what is going to happen the next time you try to block us on Iraq. McConnell surely will have got the message. This is going to significantly change the dynamic, because McConnell now knows that there will be some reaction to obstructionism besides just more capitulation. The Republicans are going to have to actually work with the Democrats on this Reid-Levin II that Reid refers to. The next time this all happens, things are going to go very differently, and the Democrats are in a position to come out with both a perceived and a real win.

All this said, here are my thoughts for what to take away from this experience-- what this entire event tells us about the real Iraq fight in a couple months, the thing that last night was basically a dress rehearsal for.

* The media messaging on this was very poor. Everyone here has seen how the media made the 30-hour debate here look like something the Democrats did rather than something the Republicans did. When the next fight happens the Democrats will have to put actual effort into framing the issue, and if necessary publicly attacking media sources who spin things in favor of the Republicans.

* Overall the next fight of this kind has to have a built-in media component. If the Democrats ever allow a real filibuster, the Democrats need to be actually targeting those Republicans sustaining the filibuster-- running ads to the constituents of moderate Republicans in states where the Iraq war is unpopular, for example, urging those constituents to make their Senator come over to their side.

* Reid has the ability to pick the time and date of the next really big battle. He needs to do so very carefully. He needs to make sure the big fight over Reid-Levin or its successor, for example, happens after the september song-and-dance Iraq progress report, so that the "but we don't know if the surge is working with!" feint will not work. Also, we should remember the reason people previously defended Reid's policy of giving up whenever threatened with a filibuster before-- that a filibuster shuts down the Congress, and inhibits the Democrats' ability to get the rest of their agenda passed. With this in mind, the Senate Democrats need to make sure that all the rest of their work they need to get done this year is completed BEFORE this hypothetical filibuster occurs, so that if Iraq fighting consumes the entire rest of the year it is not a problem.
Am I missing anything here?


Agree on the messaging issue (0.00 / 0)
This can't be something Dems are doing, even though I understand the temptation to frame it as being proactive.  It has to be "if they love this war so much, let em stay up all night and jerk each other off about it, cause Democrats and the American people know what's actually going on."

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
also agree on messaging (0.00 / 0)
This story seemed to get lost in the new-cycle.  For what was clearly designed to be a publicity stunt, I'm not seeing the resulting publicity...

[ Parent ]
credit where credit is due (4.00 / 1)
So did Harry Reid wake up one fine morning and find a pair of brass cojones under his pillow?  I don't think so.

Did he read the polls and see popular support for ending the war?  That's at least arguable.  But I don't think so.  In the past 30+ years, the Democratic leadership has ignored the polls when the polls were at odds with imperial cravings.  In fact, the MSM find all sorts of ways to slice and dice the polls, and manipulate the exact phrasing of the questions to emphasize what they want emphasized.

I remember way back when radicals started growing their hair and wearing bushy beards.  A fashion statement indeed.  (At least before barbers learned there was money to be made in hair-styling.)  But more importantly, we could look around and know we were not alone.

No.  It's us, the blogosphere, the crazy guys and gals holed up in seedy apartments with profane keyboards at three in the morning in their pajamas (:>)) lacking proper respect for our betters.  And it's sites like OpenLeft.  We again know we're not alone.  We have a voice unmediated by the Broders and the MSM.  And we will be heard!


Great, but is the larger public paying attention? (0.00 / 0)
I agree with most of the sentiments here about this being a move in the right direction.  But from my vantage point, this story isn't making major headlines like I would have hoped... which begs the question (in my mind, at least):

How much of this will it take before the larger, poorly informed public starts paying attention?


ahhh but the seeds are planted (0.00 / 0)
I wanted to let the GOP filibuster so they were forced to defend the indefensible, Chris pointed out that this fight went a long way in improving the Democratic image.  MCC made great points above about improving the messaging.  Which goes hand in hand with what I said above that hopefully, the leadership understands alot of the collusion that exists between the MSM and the GOP.  This must be turned against the MSM. 

[ Parent ]
Improving the Democratic image (0.00 / 0)
I disagree, as I said below.  Ooooooh, thirty whole hours?  This just reinforces the perception that Democrats won't fight, but will engage in lots of obfuscatory pageantry in an attempt to make people think they are.  The thing is, that perception is seeming more and more to be an accurate one.

[ Parent ]
The poorly informed public... (0.00 / 0)
  ...is aware of two basic facts: The Republicans, generally, want to keep this war going, and the Democrats, generally, want to pull the plug on it.

  The public doesn't take in details. The public takes in broad outlines. And those are the outlines.

  But the public is AGAINST this war, so the Democratic outline is the better one to have. And the public is NOT supportive of Bush.

  So last night's filibuster will be perceived by the American Idol viewer as "The Democrats tried to do something to stop this war, and there was some big all-night hoo-hah in the Senate, and they couldn't stop the war after all." But given the general perceptions of the two parties regarding Iraq, the American Idol viewer will at least be dimly aware that any roadblocks to ending this war are because of the Republicans.

  I don't see a downside to what Reid did, whatever the media coverage. But like Chris said, it's critical that he follow it up.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
To reward good behavior (4.00 / 1)
nclefty at Daily Kos has created a Thank You Harry page on ActBlue.  If anyone wants to visit and drop in some material gratitute, it's always nice to reinforce what we want in addition to bitching about what we don't want.

Here is the diary. and Here is the ActBlue page.

Thanks!


Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Last night's Senate debate was a good step in the direction of demonstrating Democratic resolve....

The party likes to "demonstrate" that they're doing something, don't they--but actually doing something, not so much.

Ugh.  I hate to be negative; I really do.  But what did this accomplish?  The purpose of it, I think, was never to genuinely challenge the GOP filibuster or to push for a change in Iraq policy.  It was simply, as you say, to show people--specifically, to show us loyal (but getting increasingly angry) Democrats--that they're "doing something."

Here's my question: If it's worth holding up other Senate business for 30 hours to deal with Iraq, why isn't it worth holding up other Senate business for a week?  Pretending to fight is not the same as actually fighting.


There's a limit to what's possible (0.00 / 0)
There's a limit to what's possible.  No matter how noble the cause, trying to ram through legislation when you *know* you don't have the votes... well that just stops being effective after a while!

I understand that this was designed to raise awareness, to show the Democrats' resolve, etc etc.  But in my opinion, they did a poor job of framing this and making sure they had at least a full news cycle for the story.

But all in all, I think this is a move in the right direction.


[ Parent ]
Well look (0.00 / 0)
It's trending in the right direction and it sure is a helluva lot better than a year ago.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

[ Parent ]
news headline review: Republican obstruction shining through (0.00 / 0)
Perusing the news.google.com headlines, it looks like the message we want is coming through.  I'd estimate 80-90% of the headlines and leading sentences are favorable, as well as several headlines about how the local senator voted.

Today, the emotional impression (in the advertising sense) that everyone that gets in a 10 second news snippet will be:
1) Democrats in the senate are fighting
2) Republicans are blocking and want to keep troops in Iraq

We can't lose with this sort of advertising: this is the best possible way to highlight the differences between the parties on an issue 70% of the public agrees on.  Go Harry!

My favorite headline from Tusla, OK: Senate Republicans turn back plan to bring troops home

end the occupation of Iraq


Filibustering (0.00 / 0)
Recognizing that last night's debate was not technically a filibuster, one can certainly see where this might lead.  I think that the Democratic leadership should force a true filibuster on every issue of importance that the Republicans try to derail.

Perhaps the idea of repeatedly reading the Washington phone book or recipes for grilled roadkill, and televising it, might make some of these people reconsider.  Surely some of these Republicans know that staying the course with GWB will mean many of them will not return in 2009.

McConnell has stated that he intends to delay virtually all attempts by Democrats in the Senate to pass any legislation, and then attack them for being a "do nothing" Congress.  I would bring up his statement every time a Democrat is on a talk show.  Since we won't have anything to do, let's at least make them as uncomfortable and ridiculous looking as possible.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search