Ed Kilgore writes that the candidates on the Better Democrats page actually outperformed the Blue Dogs this cycle:
According to Chris Bowers of OpenLeft, five members of ActBlue's BetterDemocrats list of reliably progressive House candidates were among those who won Republican seats last night: Alan Grayson of FL, Eric Massa of NY, Joshua Segall of AL, Tom Perriello of VA, and Gary Peters of MI. Two others, Darcy Burner of WA and Charlie Brown of CA, are in very close races that haven't yet been decided.
Meanwhile, according to an email from Blue Dog Coalition communications director Kristen Hawn, they're claiming Bobby Bright of AL and Walt Minnick of ID, who won Republican seats, plus Frank Kradovil of MD, who's in an undecided race. But of the four incumbent Democrats who lost, two (Nick Lampson of TX and Tim Mahoney of FL) were officially Blue Dogs, while the other two (Nancy Boyda of KS and Don Cazayoux of LA) were closely aligned with the Blue Dogs.
Now, turns out I was wrong, and Segall lost. Also, Charlie Brown wasn't on our list of candidates. Still, that makes four House victories, with Burner's campaign still pending. That tops the Blue Dog's performance, as they actually netted zero seats in Congress.
Further, according to an email I received earlier today, the Progressive Caucus projects eleven new members:
U.S. Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), anticipate adding up to 11 new CPC Members in the 111th Congress. This could increase the size of the CPC to at least 84 Members, making it by far the largest and most diverse sub-group among all Democrats in the new 111th Congress -- an increase of up to 27 new House Members since Lee and Woolsey became CPC leaders.
With the Blue Dogs staying even while Better Democrats, the Progressive Caucus, and Responsible Plan candidates all gaining, it sure seems to me like we made not only more Democrats yesterday, but better ones too.
Today, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'. They are trying to hand off the war to the Democrats, but even Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed. In a separate bill, Republicans also voted against timelines, for torture, and accountability for military contractors, including various elements of a Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. This bill passed with 227 votes; last year, it passed with only 218 votes, for a gain of 9.
Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans. It included a war surtax of one half of one percent on people making over $500k a year to pay for the GI bill, at the behest of Blue Dogs. This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. Bill Foster and Don Cazayoux both voted well on the new GI Bill and on the Responsible Plan bill with timelines, but were 'yes' votes on war funding. So yes, they are conservative, and I expect Childers to be conservative as well. Still, the MS-01, the IL-14 special election result, and the LA-06 special election result - all red seats picked off by Democrats - are devastating Republican discipline in the House.
This war is going to end because it is politically unsustainable. The Senate is going to add the funding back in and the House will make sure the money goes to the war, but recognize how big a deal this is. The Republicans in the House and the Senate are going to utterly collapse this fall, and Democrats will have a mandate to end the war. It's something Obama has promised to do, and now the political logic there is undeniable. The question is whether there will be residual troops in the country, and that is where we can have an impact.
An end to this war means no more troops in Iraq. The Republicans are going to face, as Tom Matzzie said, extinction, because they kept the war going.
I grew up, as many of you know, in a military family. In my family - as in most military families - there is a deep loyalty to the United States: the well-being of our country comes concretely before our families and very lives.
It is appropriate that when our country of, by, and for the people authorizes the use of deadly force, it is only to those whose loyalty to our country comes before any other loyalties they have.
Except that, as you know, that's not now the case. Now we have people using deadly force in our names whose loyalty is instead to corporations, most notoriously Blackwater.
This is an extremely important event with real possibilities to change the Democratic Congress. While the Responsible Caucus is composed of prospective members of Congress rather than current members, it also distinguishes itself from the other caucuses by having a wider range, and longer list, of specific legislation it endorses. In fact, 17 pieces of legislation are listed in Appendix A of the plan. So, while its members are prospective rather than current, it actually already includes numerous current members of the House. Further, the sheer amount of specific legislation makes it a much more coherent caucus in terms of policy than most, or all, of the other ideological caucuses. Yet further, the ranks of the Responsible continue to grow, with forty new members joining in the last month alone.
Something very big is happening with The Responsible Plan. It might be happening somewhat under the radar, and it might not be directly related to the presidential primary, but this could be the most important development in the Democratic Party over the last two months. Large numbers of Democratic congressional challengers are organizing themselves around specific legislation without guidance or supervision of existing party committees or leadership. Effective, progressive leadership is emerging, and that is a very welcome development.
"General depending accounting used, this war will cost us from $2 - 3.5 trillion. Help me explain to my constituents why it is more important to rebuild Iraq and not rebuild America."
Tim Cunha (FL-06) sent a letter to Democratic House leaders.
When General David Petraeus and U. S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker meet with Congress Tuesday and Wednesday, Tim Cunha, Democratic 6th district congressional candidate, wants them asked: "Is the continued American involvement in the Iraq civil war making America safer?"
Alice Kryzan (NY-26) in a heavily contested primary has a video.
Since Cokie Roberts brought it up, I've always wondered what, exactly, there is for us to "win" in Iraq. Seriously-what is our national Iraq prize? It is not even clear to me what those people who cheerlead for the war are seeking for us to win. I know the permanent bases in southern Iraq serve numerous purposes for the architects of the war (influence over southern oil fields, a forward position against Iraq, redeploying out of Saudi Arabia, control over a puppet Iraqi government), and were actually listed as the rationale for war in a September 2000 Bush campaign document. However, no one ever publicly defends the war on those grounds.
Is our national prize for "winning" the Iraq war a free and stable Iraq? Really? That's what we have to gain from all this? That is why we severely damaged our economy, our reputation in the world, why 5% of all Iraqis are dead and another 16% are refugees, and why over 5,000 Americas are dead? There aren't many Americans who think that this is worth that. When CBS and CNN polled that exact question in March, only 29% and 36% of the country thought the costs of the war were worth the results so far.
It is all well and good to say that the American people want to win. After all, in general, people want to win things, at least as opposed to losing things. However, no one wants to win regardless of the cost, and Americans decided a long time ago that whatever "victory" in Iraq might look like, it was not been worth what has happened there. When people decide that "victory" isn't worth the cost, they want a way to end the entire project, and that is what the Responsible Plan offers.
This week is a tremendous messaging opportunity on Iraq for anyone who wants to take it. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are testifying in the House and the Senate on Tuesday and Wednesday about the surge. The goal from our perspective should be to pose the question of whether our presence in Iraq is making us safer, rather than focusing on levels of violence and the tactical questions surrounding the surge. Barack Obama frames it correctly with this question.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat, also wants a quick end to the war. On Friday, he said: ""We still don't have a good answer to the question posed by Sen. (John) Warner the last time Gen. Petraeus appeared: How has this effort in Iraq made us safer and how do we expect it will make us safer in the long run?"
By far the worst framing is done by Carl Levin, speaking about the surge.
"In my judgment, it's too rosy, but there are parts of it that are not so rosy, and both pieces need to be declassified," Sen. Carl Levin said, pointing in particular to the portion of the report describing Iraq's political progress.
Levin also likes to blame the Iraqi government for the problems in Iraq. It's actually a fairly common line, with prominent Democrats undercutting a coherent message.
"We saw a meaningful reduction in violence, and that presented an opportunity to build up national reconciliation that was the underlying premise of the surge," said Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It seems that the Iraqis have largely frittered it away."
Republicans, meanwhile, see this week as an opportunity to push their message about winning in Iraq. Here's what Republicans are planning.
On the Republican side, a veterans group tied to the party is planning a rally near the Senate, while House Republicans are coordinating with conservative bloggers and will invite conservative radio commentators to broadcast from Washington. Republicans plan to push for new money for troops in Iraq; to highlight statements by Democrats that the troop "surge," which ended last fall, has worked; to point out some signs of political reconciliation; and to insist that troops can be removed from Iraq only when military leaders decide it is the proper time.
"The goal of the effort is not just to reinforce the message delivered by General Petraeus, but to launch a full-fledged assault on the misinformation campaign promoted by Democratic leaders who have lost every time they have tried to legislate defeat for America," said an internal strategy memo for Republican communications operatives.
It is clear that DC Democrats have several different lines of messaging going on that work against each other. Some of them want to drill into the tactics of the surge, some want to discuss larger national security questions, and some want to concede the surge worked but that the Iraqis are somehow at fault.
It's important to recognize that this is all a sideshow to the real question in front of all of us, one avoided by many of the politicians in DC. What do we do in Iraq to make our country safer?
In a sign of how seriously the Obama campaign is taking Pennsylvania, last night at my ward endorsement meeting, the Obama campaign actually sent three surrogates to speak to, and take questions from, the committee people. One of those surrogates was iMark Alexander, the national policy director! And this is just one of 66 wards in Philadelphia, which itself only represents 23-25% of the statewide primary electorate in the state. Despite my large platform, I could not pass up the chance to ask a question about residual forces in Iraq to the national policy director.
The answer was pretty much as expected. There will be residual troops, carrying out a variety of possible missions: protecting the embassy, participating in an international peacekeeping force, conducting counter-terrorism, and training Iraqi troops. All of those missions, except embassy protection, were listed as possible missions, not definite ones. No estimate on troop levels were provided. Basically, it was all of the same answers I kept receiving from campaigns back in 2007, and which eventually led to the following television commercial:
A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."
This is not surprising at all, given that Kahl wrote the paper for the Center for a New American Security (which is not "center-left"). That was the think tank that finally allowed us to put a solid figure on the size of residual forces back in September. Second, it has been clear for literally a year now that both Obama and Clinton (and Biden and Dodd) were proposing residual forces in Iraq of this size. This is publicly available information, and it has been around for some time. While both Kahl and the Obama campaign deny that the plan represents the position of the Obama campaign, the fact is that the answer I received last night on residual forces, just like the answers I had been receiving on residual forces during 2007, is exactly the same as the Center for a New American Security plan. It is exactly the same list of troop missions, only without the estimate on the number of troops.
This isn't something that the Clinton campaign should crow about, because the 60,000-troop plan is also exactly the same as their residual force plan. If anything, unless their proposals have changed, the Clinton campaign's plan is worse, since their residual force missions are listed as definite rather than as possible, and also listed as happening in Iraq, instead of some possibly happening in a neighboring country. The simple fact is that once Edwards dropped out, there was no longer any meaningful difference between the remaining Democratic candidates on residual forces. As such, residual did not play a role in determining who I would support in the primary.
It is increasingly clear that, even in a Democratic administration, in order to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq, several things will have to happen. First, it will be important for a no residual force supporter, such as Bill Richardson, to hold either Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. Second, it will require congressional leadership, such as that found in the Responsible Plan for Iraq, to pass legislation requiring even a Democratic President to reduce the size of, or do away with entirely, residual forces in Iraq. Third, it will require continuing pressure of Democrats, progressives and anti-war activists who will support the nominee this year to influence and hold the new President accountable on completing withdrawal from Iraq. The simple, and depressing, fact is that we will not end our military participation in the war in Iraq just by winning a big trifecta in the 2008 elections. In order to build a truly progressive governing majority in this and other areas, we will have to keep fighting long afterwards. To put it one way, progressives will need our own residual troops in a Democratic administration.
In the 8th District, which encompasses the Eastern suburbs of Seattle, analysts say former Microsoft executive Burner's organization, fundraising, and her views on the Iraq war have boosted her campaign. Observers add that the state and national Democratic organizations are also helping.
"She's also going to benefit by the strength of the Democratic party... the party base is activated," David Olson, professor of political science at the University of Washington told CQ Politics. Olson added that in the district "they have real problems in the Republican organization.(...)
Burner shocked many in 2006 when in her first campaign for public office she narrowly lost to Republican Rep. Dave Reichert by 3 percent in what was once a Republican stronghold.
Burner has made the Iraq war, which is highly unpopular in the district, a centerpiece of her 2008 campaign. She initiated an effort to create a plan to end the war. After six months of consultation with retired generals and national security experts, she was joined by nine Democratic challengers in the release of a formal plan March 17. It reiterates many of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and calls for removing all U.S. troops from Iraq (without proposing a specific timeline), enlisting allies to help stabilize Iraq, and improving America's international reputation.
Great press for Darcy and The Responsible Plan. Well earned, I might add. This is self-starting organizing in the best tradition of the contemporayr progressive moveemnt and online activism. Darcy is truly one of us (no, seriously--she actually blogs on Open Left).
Chuck Schumer believed in 2007 that Iraq would be off the table in 2008 because Bush would withdraw troops after the surge failed. He's wrong about the former, but he might not be wrong about the surge failing. This is a very bad sign.
"The cease-fire is over; we have been told to fight the Americans," said one Mahdi Army militiaman, who was reached by telephone in Sadr City. This same man, when interviewed in January, had stated that he was abiding by the cease-fire and that he was keeping busy running his cellular phone store.
Sadr City residents say they saw fighting Tuesday between Mahdi militiamen and US and Iraqi forces in several parts of the district. One eyewitness, in the adjacent neighborhood of Baghdad Jadida, who wished to remain anonymous, said he saw a heavy militia presence on the streets, with two fighters planting roadside bombs on a main thoroughfare.
Firedoglake and Ilan Goldenberg have more, and Crooks and Liars has video of CNN's reporting. The surge, which is not that relevant to our political choices here at home, was always a tactical question. There were many reasons why violence dropped in Iraq, and increased American troop presence was probably one of them. I think we're about to see how significant some of the other factors were.
And yet, the fact that Sadr's possible decision to abrogate a cease fire with American troops is important to our national security only reinforces the point that, surge or nor surge, we letting local warlords bind our hands. When putting together the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, the authors recognized the reality that there is no military solution in Iraq, and that political, economic, and diplomatic tools need to be deployed to deal with our national security in a smart way. Violence increased in Iraq because of a political breakdown, which only reinforces the rationale for the plan. It's funny how big fancy think tanks like Brookings missed this fact, but candidates, voters, and activists got it right once again. I can't help but hope that the ridiculous conversation we've been having for months about the surge will shift onto more productive terrain, so that we are asking the question of how to make American safe going forward with regards to our policies in Iraq.
When Petraeus testifies once again in April, this should be first and foremost in the discussion.
It's an interesting list, candidates from red states like Kentucky, Idaho, and North Carolina to swing states like Florida and Oregon to blue states like Maryland, Washington, and New York.
There will be more sign-ons, and Republicans are having a tough time dealing with the framing, veering from attacking the plan as too liberal to having their moderates basically agree with it (while voting against the specifics in the plan, of course).
Meanwhile, 50 military leaders led by Anthony Zinni just called for a strong investment in nonmilitary tools to reorganize our national security. The framing works quite well, because changing the conversation around national security makes a lot of sense at this moment in history.
The amazing organization VoteVets is having a contest to see which candidate gets $5k in PAC. VoteVets endorses military veterans, a group that needs more political representation, and the leader of the organization, Jon Soltz, argues aggressively for smart national security strategy on cable news channels in a way most of wish Democrats would. He takes it to the Republicans every day on Iraq and on smart uses of the military, breaking us out of the stultified national security conversation.
The group was essential in beating George Allen, and ran effective ads on body armor in 2006 that were extremely powerful. They are having an endorsement contest to see which veteran gets a $5k PAC donation.
I've been meaning to sign up for their alerts anyway, so I signed up here and voted for Eric Massa, the only VoteVets guy to endorse the Responsible Plan.
The Iraq debate is going to be heating up for the next eight months. Tom Andrews of Win Without War just sent an open letter to Congress calling for an end to Congressional funding of the war. Significantly, the call is not just to cut off funding for the war effort general, but to cut off funding for permanent military bases, military contractors, and any long term status of force agreements with the Iraqi government that will tie the hands of the next President. Andrews is also calling for the funding of a diplomatic offensive in the region.
It's a turn for the Iraq campaign, and a way to broaden the conversation away from the ridiculous notion that this war can be stopped in one fell swoop. You can co-sign the letter here.
Republicans, meanwhile, were quick to pounce on the Democrats' plan.
"This so-called plan is nothing more than the same liberal talking points we have been hearing for the last year," said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain. "Clearly, their plan is to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-led Congress."
Reichert aide Mike Shields said, "I think both sides would agree we have the same plan: We want our troops home as soon as possible."
But Reichert "wants them to withdraw based on the situation on the ground," Shields said. "This plan wants them to withdraw based on the domestic political situation in the United States."
Reichert opposes committing to an immediate drawdown of U.S. troops, Shields said. And Reichert also is against massive U.S. spending in Iraq, an oil-rich country that has plenty of resources of its own, he said.
But Reichert agrees that diplomacy should be explored more widely, Shields said. Not only that, Reichert has actively supported many of the legislative measures touted in the plan and favored a bill to adopt all of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission, Shields said.
Reichert has supported George Bush on Iraq every single time he was given the opportunity, so this is a straight up lie. And lying is a good strategy for Republicans and people running on this plan. Jared Polis, who is running against 2003 war supporter and establishment Democrat Joan Fitz-gerald, faced this criticism.
"This plan has no timelines for withdrawal from the war in Iraq. On this the 5th anniversary of this war, the soldiers, their families and the American people deserve a straight answer on this most important issue," the Fitz-gerald campaign said in a release. "This plan clearly contradicts everything Jared has previously stated about his stance on funding for the war without a firm timeline for withdrawal."
As the establishment choice, Fitz-gerald supported the war in 2003, and she's now lying about Polis and the plan. Timelines and defunding are obviously on the table, and their use heavily depends on the next President. Fitz-gerald's statement is irresponsible, but it is characteristic of establishment candidates. In 2003, she supported the war, now she's attacking a responsible antiwar candidate from the left, and if she wins, I'm sure she'll start discussing the success of the surge. That's what anti-leaders do.
Meanwhile, the DCCC is fairly neutral about the endeavor.
"Iraq will continue to be an issue this cycle with John McCain running for a third Bush term," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Doug Thornell. "As Gen. David Petraeus said, Iraqi leaders are not making sufficient progress. Voters are looking for a new direction in Iraq and Democrats will continue to work to bring our troops home responsibly."
I'll have a lot more on this soon, for the rest of the day I'll be at Take Back America doing meetings. The reception of the plan has been overwhelming. Candidates are jumping on board, and opponents are having to resort to lies to deal with the political strength of the argument. That is a bad position to be in. It is much better to be on the trail and make the argument, 'I have a responsible plan to get us out of Iraq'.
STATE BLOGS
