The "Netroots" seems not to agree with me on this.

I still don't have a clear understanding of how those key issues are going to be addressed, but at the same time it's become absolutely crystal clear: anything short of defunding means the war persists.  There is no bargaining - there's no making the "other side" see reason on this.  There isn't a non-binding resolution that will make the administration change course.  

It's going to take this much... one person at a time, one member of Congress at a time.  

When the netroots disconnects from the political process, then we have two enclaves talking to themselves.  By this I mean when the netroots mistakes itself for "the people's voice," when that voice only makes itself heard in discussions we hold here, on dk, on mydd etc.

The crossover is the media.  We need to do more to get your plan out to the media.  How do representatives find out what the people want?  From correspondence?  From polls?  From anti-war demonstrators hanging out in their offices?  From petitions?  Or from reading the newspaper?  Certainly not from the Internet.

Sometimes life moves too fast to keep up. I don't quite understand the NetRoots movement and its political relevance. I think that the internet does have a role to play in politics, because it is an efficient means to consolidate voices and put pressure on politicians. However, it does not change the fundamental nature of politics, it just adds another layer.

I think ending this war, through defunding or any other means, requires political will and strategic manuevering. The politicians listen to the public through many channels of communciation. THe internet is an efficient way to get voices heard by politicians. But, politics still moves at a snail's pace. To end the war by a specific date might be feasible in the ideal political world if the proper pressures are brought to bear on the poloticians and they realize the correct political choice is to vote for defunding the war on a specified date. This is idealistic. Appealing to the morality of politicians to make the greater morale choice is useless not because politicians lack morales, but because polical effectiveness and relevance requires that a politician be pragmatic and being pragmatic serves the greater moral good in the end.

In the real world, it takes much greater commitment from radical reformers. Going on blogs and making grandiose plans and demanding action might get your voice heard eventually, but it is not the work of a reformer. Effective radical reformers have always operated in the streets making speeches directly to the people placing the radical reformer directly on the radar screens of the political elite. Being a radical reformer is dangerous work. Making  a viewpoint known on the internet is safe and, in todays world with the amount of voices on the internet, largely autonomous and irrelevant.

If you really want change, you don't advocate for it from a keyboard to a monitor. You demand it - on the street. You make yourself visible. After your voice is heard and you become targeted by the elite and, in most cases largely discredited or silenced by the elite, the left politicians move in and make change that the people and nation accept and need. But, the radical reformer is not detered by his or her eventual demise, because they are reacting to a calling - not making a career choice. That is how radical political change happens.

I am not a radical reformer, anymore than any other voice on the internet. I am waiting to hear the call from someone in the street. When that call comes people should rally in support. Perhaps Kucinich is that reformer, but he has yet to gather the support in the street.

I think you might be able to amplify your voice and then folks would know who needs calls, letters, or personal visits.  Find out when visitations can take place.

Guess my suggestions all involve working within the system but that is my experience.  Can't even offer up my legislators because they are Bush buddies all the way.

What I have been getting calls, letters, and emails about is calling legislators about stopping the escalation and sending more troops into peril.  Wonder if that is the major focus right now and if there isn't some trading of support.  

Nonetheless, to the first, I've never bought into the idea of "The Netroots" as it is conceptualized and acted on by its active proponents and participants.  I've always felt that Markos and his colleagues on the net have slightly missed the mark in both their analysis of what the Netroots is and their conceptualization of what it can/should do. But that's because I disagree with where they draw their political and action boundaries.  Like Larry upthread, I do see this as a disagreement within the netroots.  But I'd agree with you that Kos, Stoller and the other boyz you list do represent a kind of leadership of this leviathan some folks like to call the netroots. For me disagreeing with those types isn't so unusual, but it is for you, hence some of the attention to this, or?  I'd also note that Markos does sometimes talk out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to talk of "The Netroots" as an entity: at times he makes great claims for it and to it, and others he backs away.  Rightly so, as discussions around it can tend to get very grandiose rather quickly, but he's not always consistent in that sense.  

As for defunding, I've read some of the discussions on dkos about it, but have refrained from commenting for the most part.  Mostly because I find the discussions are framed (for lack of a better term) inadequately.  Granted this is the problem with the bulk of political discussions in our society, but this one is framed in a way that doesn't allow for particularly productive engagement, it seems to me.  You've set it up this way as well: either support defunding or you support continuing the Iraq debacle.  This kind of a take strikes me as fundamentally missing how things like bringing about the end of a seriously mistaken, mismanaged, and ill-conceived military operation are actually achieved.  I understand that at the moment, the tool we have is a Democratically controlled Congress, so we turn to legislation, and budget oversight.  But the truth is, that even with a Democratically-controlled Congress, Congress by itself can't do it.  Without a sympathetic Executive, that level of change has to come from a vast sea change of the political culture, which means a multi-pronged strategy that is a bit more long-term.  In short, I'm going back to our own, long-term discussions about movement vs. electoral politics.  I see this as fitting right into that. I am as happy as anyone that we have a Democratically-controlled Congress and that the outcome of the 2006 elections was as it was, but that wasn't the solution.  It was just one piece of the puzzle.  So my own position on defunding is rather simple: I'm in favor of continuing the discussion, of keeping defunding on the table as the tool of choice for Congress, but let's stop talking about defunding as "the solution" for ending the debacle in Iraq.  Start talking about it in the context of how it is going to have to happen: many different facets of US society are going to have to come together to reject the mess that Bush Co has brought us and to do something to get us out of it.  Draw connections across institutions, make alliances, redefine what Bush Co keeps trying to foist upon us.  That's how big assed military operations are ended when outright military victory or well-defined executive/administrative action isn't possible.  The illegitimacy of it all has to become real throughout political and public culture.  That's a time consuming and extra-electoral, even extra-legislative process.  But elections, legislation and Congressional oversight are an important piece of it.  

The truth remains that the Democratic Party establishment in general, and the moderate (i.e. Conservative) and DLC wing in particular, is deathly afraid of being called soft on terror or non-supportive of the troops. A few of them may even share a belligerent position on the US Middle-east, and would fall right in line with any expansion of the war.

The Dem establishment is certainly more comfortable continuing to fund the war, and letting the Iraq fiasco grind down the Republicans in 2008. I labeled this a cynical and immoral political strategy, but one that would probably be effective.

I was also the one commenting that the Democrats didn't get us out of Vietnam, either (Nixon did), and that the most direct route out of Iraq would be for the Republicans to realize their brand has been so damaged, that the ONLY way out of certain failure in 2008 will be to abandon the neocons, Bush and Cheney.

Somehow, I think the Republicans will be more coldly calculating on this than the Conservative Democrats. (Let's watch for Giuliani do the Nixon.) So, I think that pressure on the Republicans would bear fruit the soonest. Drawing the line in the sand a little more to the left, escalating the criticism of Bush/Cheney, and supporting the progressive caucus would be a better strategy than trying to appease the Blue Dogs.

Why do you think that defunding would actually stop Bush/Cheney from doing anything? Won't they just declare Unitary Presidential Priviledge for the Commander and Chief to Defend the Country, and move funds for Iraq from elsewhere.

This is a radical administration, intent on retaining power to run with neocon dreams of Middle-East dominance. They don't play by the rules of democracy (like obeying laws), and they have considerable media support.

Second big problem

A lot of Democrats have a 1950s vision of our country, as if the Congress makes laws and the President implements them. They want to live in a the comfortable world of bipartisanship and collegiality. Compromises that feed pork to the voters back home.  How many have the capacity to believe that the Republican Party isn't playing that game?

Third Problem

The Democrats are deathly afraid of the "soft on terrorism" accusation and the VRWC. They have internalized this timidity. The moment the Bush/Cheney administration instigates an incident with Iran, the Democrats will cave once again and give them more war powers?

Where is your magic wand to cause the Democratic Party to actually stand up to the Bush/Cheney/Neocon government, especially when it comes to a national security issue, like a war? They don't have the psychological and philosophical make up to understant the problem.

Is "defund the war" your magic bludgeon?

In the absence of a Presidency who plays by the rules, and in the absence of Democratic Party willing to challenge Bush, Does your calling on the Democratic Party to defund the war amount to pretty much the same thing as "making a list, checking it twice"?

Voters spoke very clearly in November: they want the war to end.  Yet Congress has taken no steps to defund or end a war it never should have condoned in the first place.

On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an upcoming Iraq funding bill-- more even than the administration has requested.  The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough.  And it's all done under the slogan of "supporting the troops," even as our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive casualties.

I remember from an earlier post ,on dkos, BTD, that you stated Bush needs to get to Iran through Iraq. I think you were right. We need  to shut Bush down at some date certain, not a vague date sometime in 2008 or January 2009. The way I see it we have to defund the War. Pick a date, publish the date and talk about the date that funding ends then just refuse to  pass the funding bills for the war.