Having successfully disaffected the polis from the mission of their citizen soldiers by sharing the work of beating the “Another Grim Milestone” tocsin with a national media wedded to ledes that bleed, and having ridden that disaffection into majority status in the national legislature, the new sheriffs in town wonder – apart from raking through the muck of decisions past for further incremental partisan gain- what is to be done? About, you know: The War.
Because this whole “governing responsibly” thing? Harder than it looked.
Some in the majority want to cut off all funding, now, right now, yesterday if possible, and the devil with the consequences because it isn’t their fault that we got into this mess and if a few hundred thousand overseas wogs have to pay for it with their lives, well then that’s a shame but the good news is that the security environment will be so bad during the Roman holiday that follows our precipitate withdrawal that CNN won’t be around to film it, so it isn’t like it will be real.
I mean, can anyone remember how long it took for word of the Cambodian “killing fields” to leak out? Years!
Representative John Lewis, a liberal Georgia Democrat, declared his opposition (to a house funding bill that would require a withdrawal in 2008), saying, ‚ÄúI will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war…‚Äù
Representative Pete Stark, a California Democrat, said he had opposed every war-spending request that had come before him since being elected to Congress in 1972. (During the Vietnam War, he opened a bank with a giant peace symbol on top, attracting customers who shared his views.)
Asked what he found troubling about the current legislation, Mr. Stark snapped, “What’s to like?”
“We used the war to help us win control of Congress,” (Congressman Dennis) Kucinich said. “We succeeded and created expectations to move quickly to end the war. But now we are giving President Bush enough money to fight the war through the end of his term?”
Others were elected from traditionally conservative states and districts, and don’t feel comfortable – fiscal inducements notwithstanding – pulling the rug out from under deployed forces in the field:
Representative Dan Boren is a Democrat, but after visiting Iraq last week he announced a decision that puts him at odds with his party’s leaders: he intends to vote against their plan to set a deadline for troops to leave Iraq.
“A timeline, in effect, is cutting off the funds,” said Mr. Boren, a conservative second-term lawmaker whose territory covers the eastern swath of Oklahoma, from the bottom of Kansas to the top of Texas. “That is not the solution.”
His views have barely caused a ripple in his home district, but the House Democratic leadership has been working to keep Mr. Boren‚Äôs views from spreading through the party‚Äôs jittery conservative wing…
Representative Brad Ellsworth of Indiana was one of the most prized new Democratic recruits of the 2006 elections, a sheriff whose image embodied what party leaders wanted voters to see as the strength of the ticket. Part of his law-and-order message, though, was opposing the idea of setting a deadline to pull troops out of Iraq.
To make it easier for members of the conservative Blue Dog coalition, many of whom represent farming districts, Democratic leaders inserted nearly $24 billion in domestic spending, including emergency agricultural assistance, to go along with the financing for troops and veterans.
And yet a third block within the majority is pushing hard to do something, anything, because after all, isn’t this what they were elected to do? The people might notice.
Representative Carol Shea-Porter, a New Hampshire Democrat who defeated a two-term Republican last fall by waging an antiwar campaign, said the Iraq debate had proved to be more distressing ‚Äî and complicated ‚Äî than she had imagined…
“Immediate withdrawal is irresponsible; staying the course is irresponsible,” (Congressman Stephanie) Herseth said. “Some will disagree as to whether or not this is the most responsible, but it’s certainly more responsible than the other two alternatives.”
Welcome to the 21st Century, congressmen.
Stupid F…s..
They waged a “Bush Lied-Let’s end the war” la-la-la campaign as you point out..but not one of the “winners” have a plan for Victory or even a coherent plan for losing (Except ex-Marine Jack)..(fliterman: I will point out to you in advance that war in the 21st century has no gracious losers…)
The only one who does, I mean did, is FORMER Democrat Liberman. Plus, the Blue Dog coalition is B.S., they should be the Yellow Dogs. Since when have they offered anything except equivocating?
It must take a very hollow man or woman to try to act like they want to win, only to plot that we lose, so they can “win” a “job” for 2, 4 or 6 years…
Craven ain’t it?
b2
Dems in Congress are being stalked by their very own Nutroots supporters, outraged that their elected representatives have not delivered immediately on their fantasy ideology that makes all bad things like war go away. Like Now. This very instant.
We may see the incredible irony of supposedly antiwar politicians verbally and even physically attacked by the lunatic fringe they courted. For not being ‘pure’ enough.
B2 said: “…Craven ain?
B2 said: “…Craven ain’t it?…”
And are any of us surprised? Sickened yes, that our fears may be realized. But surprised, nope.
Not a word I’ve ever written or said (being an Old Southern Lady), but b2’s first 2-word sentence says it for me!
The mention of Leiberman reminds me, there used to be a time when the House was popularly elected and reflected the passions of the populace. The Senate was appointed by the States, and reflected their interests. The Executive was elected via the Electoral College and was to administer this balance of powers.
Seems to me the present problems stem from the fact that Congress is responding to the most vocal, and rather than the Senate being beholden to their States they are beholden to the same vocal group only with more time to come up with an acceptable answer.
Seems to me there’s an electorate, a state, and a nation all involved in this. It is a shame that the states have no representation today and the only difference between the House and the Senate is the time until the next election, thus allowing the vocal to dictate the actions of the nation and only the executive to mitigate those passions.
– Max
They are finding out that life’s a little different when you have to make a descision that you can be held accountable for.
Max,
The main problem is the number of people who don’t vote. Politicians know that the majority of these nutcases do vote. When you only have 30%-40% of people voting these nutcases become a significant percentage.
“…the Iraq debate had proved to be more distressing ?
“…the Iraq debate had proved to be more distressing — and complicated — than she had imagined…”
Oh poor baby, to be elected then to actually have to do some WORK.
Web Reconnaissance for 03/23/2007…
A short recon of what?ǂ
Web Reconnaissance for 03/23/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention….
With a h/t to a fellow New Englander (specifically Maine) – SluBlog – I give you CodePink cries. A highlight:
“…We?
With a h/t to a fellow New Englander (specifically Maine) – SluBlog – I give you CodePink cries. A highlight:
“…We’re just heartbroken that Nancy Pelosi has decided to keep funding George Bush’s war, and now the war belongs to the Democrats as well as the Republicans,” said Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin…”
Boo Hoo.
House just passed the bill — 218 for 214 against.
- SJS
Kris, you have to understand Stephanie Herseth’s rise to politics.
South Dakota elected Janklow to governor a few times, he set his sights on the Congressional slot, and won handily over Herseth. Herseth was the pretty face of a conservative Democrat that party could muster to run, and to give you an idea she awarded herself a salary out of campaign funds while she was running — she’s not some bankrolled aspirer, she was the designated loser but they had to run somebody and she fit the bill, and she’s held no other position in government being so young. Her family has a major name in politics in this part of the country, she basically went from the family farm to law school to running for representative.
Thune had upset Daschle (the Senate majority leader) in the Senatorial race, Johnson wasn’t up for re-election, Janklow won over Herseth but it was fairly close.
Then Janklow killed a motorcyclist by blowing through a stop sign on a rural highway (which pretty much describes them all out here). 12 people good and true in the little town of Flandreau (come visit our hardware store!) found him guilty of negligent manslaughter, he issued a resignation, suddenly we needed a new Representative and Herseth the sacrifical lamb now had name recognition and a campaign that could be re-fired in moments.
Suddenly instead of being the designated loser she’s in the role of incumbent. She won by a small margin because South Dakotans are a conservative lot and tend to figure the D or R means little in our crop of candidates — we tend to go off names we know as reputable and actions performed.
This is Stephanie’s first time in public office, and she’s having one devil of a time trying to grasp those ethanol and farm subsidy dollars with one hand and distance herself from the San Francisco liberal cut-and-run policies with the other.
It would be easy to dislike her for this vote, and I do, but it’s also easy to see the bind she finds herself in. Apparently principles no longer resonate with the electorate.
Which reminds me, Jim? That’s precisely my point! With so few voting, and those who do vote being motivated by anger rather than want as evidenced by the effectiveness of the attack ad, I fear there is nobody in office save for perhaps the executive that has reason to consider the country as a whole any longer, or even the populace of their state in general. We’ve reduced politics to merely being responsive to the upset and vocal. Unfortunately, mandating participation would also introduce greater ignorance into the problem. I do not have a cure for this, I merely recognize it as a factor that causes elected officials to think they can influence actions like a war by offering mere words.
I hate to invoke Godwin’s law here, but am I not the only one to realize that the only reason Germany lost World War II was because Hitler, the Bohemian Corporal, thought himself a more strategic planner than his Generals, and he thus managed a superior fighting force with superior equipment into one defeat after another? One shudders to think what would have happened if the assassination attempt had succeeded and the German General Staff had taken charge.
It strikes me that Congress is attempting to do the same thing here. Their tools are legislation and budgets, of course, but nontheless Congress has decided it must run a war rather than let the Generals it approved of in years past do so, and it seems to believe a law will Make It So. Like, say, the laws against murder having suddenly stopped that particular crime.
I can see nothing of good coming from this for our country unless losing is now considered a good thing.
– Max
hmmm……I am wondering if one of the results will be more military members, families, etc., voting, with the ripples spreading out.
And, I am wondering if the hope of the future is now in blogs like these, spreading truth (gasp!) and ACTUAL LOGICAL THINKING BASED ON FACTS??!!
Doorkeeper, I have always subscribed to the marketplace of ideas. With freedom to express ideas comes two side effects that are immeasurably important to an informed electorate. 1) Making your argument known, that it might become one others will consider and hopefully adopt, and 2) an opportunity to defend those views, using argument to persuade those torn between two opposing points and refute the claims of the other.
There used to be an old saying, “Never argue with a guy who buys ink by the barrel.” Within the past two years I think we’ve seen that saying become irrelevant.
– Max