Epiphany on Iraq: Netroots Starts To Get It

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:53:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Chris and Matt begin to understand. I had to chuckle a bit at this one, though I totally agree, and did a week ago:

[P]rogressives get whipped into voting for a compromise, and Blue Dogs get to "vote their conscience." Progressives are expected to compromise their beliefs, but then the leadership won't even stand up and fight for a compromise they wrangled out of the progressives. If the leadership is suddenly giving up on whipping votes after spending so long working on whipping votes, it can only mean one of two things. On the one hand, it means that they now have 218 votes, and are letting everyone else go. On the other hand, it means they have given up on trying to reach 218 altogether. . . .

Uh, yeeeepp. That's why I urge the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote NO on this bill.

< NYTimes on Gonzo: "Lying To Congress Is Another Matter" | The Justice Department E-mails on U.S. Attorney Firings >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Epiphany on Iraq: Netroots Starts To Get It | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You think Miller and Pelosi will rescind. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:58:40 PM EST

their bluff, like when Bush went from Meiers to Alito? This could be a real test of our relevance.

I think it may go down to defeat. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:59:37 PM EST

Will the Out of Iraq caucus remain unified? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by cal11 voter on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:13:47 PM EST

Didn't sound like it to me from recent news articles. But neither did it sound like the Blue Dogs are unified. I would guess they think they have the votes.


Hope it doesn;t (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:15:36 PM EST

because united voting for it is bad.

We only need about 25 or so of 71.


: It doesn't sound like many, but we'll see. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by cal11 voter on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:20:28 PM EST

: We only need to teach Pelosi one lesson: (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:22:37 PM EST

Never negotiate against yourself!

: The margin may be down to five now (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 02:10:27 AM EST

Republicans are "pretty confident" they're not going to have many defectors voting for it. And Barbara Lee isn't going to be allowed to add her amendment for getting the troops out by the end of the year. So sez The Hill.

Dem leadership, that is, to pass a bill. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by cal11 voter on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:16:31 PM EST

I think it could. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by joliberal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:21:40 PM EST

I wonder how many republican reps would be likely to vote for this bill. Without the republican's help, the Dem leadership would be unable to overcome a united Out of Iraq Caucus.


: Exactly as many Republicans as it takes. (none / 0) (#9)
by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 12:44:21 AM EST

The defense contractors care more about getting the money now, than strings that may or may not matter next year.
Individual Republican backbenchers may also cut side deals with Pelosi for future considerations on pork.

Just my thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by LarryE on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 03:22:13 AM EST

I had previously been of two minds on this.

Originally, what I wanted to see was a vote on the Lee amendment. After that failed, as it would - there just isn't the support - I would have accepted progressives who voted for the final bill on the grounds that it does set some limit and it's the best that can be gotten now. (With the understanding that those same progressives would keep pushing for more later: This is not a one-shot deal.)

However, with the removal of the funding cut-off from the leadership's bill, that "limit" has been shorn of any power and the bill should be rejected by all progressives even if they do get a vote on Lee.

Sidebar: This doesn't mean that I think that Congress does not have the authority to order an end to a conflict. It does. What I'm saying is that as a practical political matter, Bush will ignore a declaration not backed up by a funding cut-off.

On another practical matter, I wonder if the Dims are making any plans to deal with the fallout from a defeat of the bill arising from a unified GOPper opposition aided by some Dums. You know the GOPpers are already planning their post-vote media assault.

David Swanson... (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 02:17:28 PM EST

...has a very good post up this morning at Let's Try Democracy about the (so far) abysmal failure of Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party Leadership to show some courage and have the cojones to face down the withering criticisms and juvenile name calling they will receive if they were to stand up to the Bush Administration and END George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle.

No Mo Money for War
Davis Swanson, March 14, 2007

After two and a half months in the majority, we've seen no investigation of the lies that launched the war, virtually no subpoenas, and no serious effort to bring the war to an end or even prevent a new war from being launched. Democrats are politely requesting Bush Administration officials to appear to discuss tangential issues. Democrats are "calling for" resignations. And we may be about to see considerably fewer Democrats vote against funding the war than did so when they were in the minority. The Democrats are about to buy this war, and once they've bought it, it will be their war. They won't get another chance to end it, and they'll be even less inclined (if that's possible) to investigate it.
No More Money: It's a simple concept... Where's the problem?
...
If you have a Democratic Congress Member, phone them at 202-224-3121 and tell them you will never vote for a Democrat again until the war ends. Tell them you'll be mailing them your voter registration card and would like it sent back the minute the war is over. It doesn't matter if you actually have such a card in your wallet. The point is to tell them that you will not vote for them if they do not end the war.

Go read David's whole article.