The New Netroots "Pragmatism"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:45:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As always I speak for me only and kudos to Bob Fertik for speaking the truth

Chris Bowers continues the MYDD approach of arguing by assertion the DC Dem Establishment position, while, to his credit, NOW acknowledging that he is not arguing the PROGRESSIVE position:

At this point, there are very few Republicans who will vote in favor. From what I hear, there are also currently more Progressives opposed to the bill than there are Blue Dogs. Given this, the politics of the supplemental fight, which will continue for some time even after the House votes on this bill, now make it clear that it is extremely important progressives do not join with Republicans in order to defeat this legislation at this time. The simple fact is that if this bill is defeated in the House, then there will be another--weaker--funding bill. . . .

It is ironic that while reporting that THIS bill is in grave danger of not passing, Chris assures us that a WEAKER bill WILL pass. What is he saying here? It is this - the DEMOCRATIC Leadership will accomodate REPUBLICANS before it will accomodate Progressives. What an indictment of the Dem leadership in the House. I could not have said anything more damning than Chris has just done.

Why do I say so? Because the Dem opposition to the bill is from the Progressive wing (and huzzah for that!) of the Dem Party. Blue Dogs are content. So who is going to be accommodated by weakening the bill? Republicans. And Chris endorses this. What happened to the Netroots, folks? The DLC holds the same views as Chris now it seems to me.

The strange thing is Chris builds his house of cards argument on assumptions that are demonstrably false.

First, Chris assumes this bill is not utterly bereft of strength. It is. It is incredibly WEAK. I repeat my question for the umpteenth time, what is GOOD about this bill?

Second, Chris assumes that a weaker bill will emerge if this bill is defeated. I ask why? Chris attacks those like Russ Feingold, Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee who espouse a don't fund the Debacle strategy, saying:

The strategy that many in the anti-war community are pushing, to defeat any new Iraq funding bill in at least one branch of Congress, has no hope of success at the current point in time. It might be successful at one point, but not right now. If this bill is defeated in the House then, as Rep. George Miller has made it quite clear, another bill, without any strings attached, will come up for a vote. Even if Miller did not make that clear, it should be fairly obvious.

(Emphasis mine.) Why should this be obvious? Why should it happen at all? Why would the Leadership support such a bill? Chris tries to explain:

While a dozen or so progressives are currently the main swing votes on whether or not this bill passes, the overwhelming majority of people who will vote against the bill will be Republicans. Two hundred Republicans, a handful of Blue Dogs, and a dozen progressives does not equal a progressive majority.

Excuse me, neither does a majority that adopts a stay in Iraq indefinitely position (and that is what the proposal does in practical terms).

Chris continues:

The debate between this bill, and a stronger bill, is unfortunately currently over on Capitol Hill when it comes to the supplemental. As inadequate as this legislation might seem when it comes to ending the war, right now, it is either this bill, or something even weaker.

Only if the Dem leadership is going to cave in to the Republicans is that so. That is the ONLY way that happens. Chris expects and applauds this. Simply put, his position is indefensible. He is now a full throttle Party man. He no longer is of the Netroots as far as I can see.

Chris assures us that the debate only starts with the supplemental. I ask when does it continue? If this bill becomes law, then the debate is over except as an isssue in the 2008 election. Ahhhh, the 2008 election. Yes, it is clear. Chris has bought completely into the strategy of "End the Iraq Debacle . . . But Only After the 2008 Election. Yes, Chris wants the Iraq Debacle debate for the 2008 election, just like all the other Beltway Dems.

Oh by the way, a final thought, what happens if McConnell filibusters? Ot Bush vetoes? We get a weaker bill don't we Chris? So what's this all about? It is all about Election 2008.

But what these fools don't realize they about to become owners of the Iraq Debacle and won't be able to run on Iraq at all in 2008. Foolish foolish people.

< Live Blogging Joseph Nacchio Opening Arguments | Bush To Defy Congress: What Now? >

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.

The New Netroots "Pragmatism" | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Quite (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 06:49:55 PM EST

I was just taking him to task for this.

What is up with MYDD? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:00:34 PM EST

: Who knows. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:30 PM EST

: The same thing that eventually happens (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by hellskitchen on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:18:40 PM EST

The Dems posted gains in 2006. Now they've got something to lose.
Why don't the learn the best lesson of the Repub rule - that sticking to your guns and fighting brings home the bacon. This can be done without being corrupt.

: They've lost their minds. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by dkmich on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 06:36:55 AM EST

I can't believe that they are sucking up to Pelosi. Did anybody see Mayor Rocky Anderson (D) on CNN? He whooped Democratic butt. This from Salt Lake City, UTAH! So much for the smarmy, they have to be conservative, they're from a red state shtick.

Nice to see (5.00 / 6) (#3)
by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:10:51 PM EST

you haven't given in. That's good. Millions agree with you.

momentum-roots (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by pyrrho on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:27 PM EST

for one, I think the self-assigned "netroots"... those three or four blogs that think they are the netroots... hates the DLC in the same way Pepsi hates Coke.

Further, they have a difficulty, kos has argued for years all that matters is the majority and having the "leader"... because, I guess, of the logic that leaders lead, or something.

Of course, we see the "leadership" looks to the body and counts votes... they count blue dogs, they accomodate conservativism... what else? It does matter.

Electing liberal Republicans would have been a better "strategy". No one believes you're naive if you make a ton of money... which is their own ignorant fault.

This is EXACTLY (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by buhdydharma on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:11:48 PM EST

Why the first Bill submitted needed to be strong.

The art of negotiation has apparently eluded ALL these people!

: Makes steam roll out of my ears right now (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:39:07 AM EST

You should see, it's funny....the kids laugh and everything. This is a tough fight, the toughest fight ever for me. It was pointed out to me too by someone that I needed to get a bit more focused on my war skills if I really thought I wanted to fight in the political war so I took a moment and brushed up. It was one of the best things I have ever done too for myself and hopefully for others as well because I do care. I care about my family, I care about other soldiers and their families, I care about the human beings who live in Iraq.

does anyone have a list of the progressive swing (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by conchita on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 07:17:23 PM EST

votes? seems like time to make the phone calls. i called nadler's office today and it felt like i reached the staffer i spoke with - no rebuttal, just silence. and i was, of course, polite and even-keeled. nadler has stood with the chelsea neighbors for peace at least one night (they are out there every tuesday night) - how does he come back and face his consitutency if he votes for this?

You know what's ironic? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by roboleftalk on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:06:44 PM EST

I do believe the beltway was arguing the dems should not run on the Iraq war in the run-up to the 2006 election! With friends like these . . .

: That's not ironic (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:25:21 PM EST

That's the truth and precisely why they are giving bad advice now.
For the record, I argued vehemently to run on Iraq in 2004 AND 2006.

For those who (still) have a Faith (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by leoncarre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 09:38:18 PM EST

It's a good week for praying:
"Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
Thank you for including the point that another effect of this bill is that Democrats sign their name to ownership of the problem.

It's their baby now.

And by the time November 2009 rolls around it's going to be difficult for many Democrats to take responsibility for what they do this week.

2008? (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:00:41 PM EST

: right (none / 0) (#14)
by leoncarre on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:49:11 PM EST

november 2008 to january 2009
i['m just a wee bit angry today

They're buying Republicans for the supplemental (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Ben Masel on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:37:18 PM EST

with earmarks.

What are you getting done? (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 11:16:40 PM EST

I'll take the physician's oath - first do no harm.

You are doing harm.

ok (none / 0) (#17)
by Matt Stoller on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 11:47:42 PM EST

Shorter Big Tent Democrat: I don't want to do any actual work.


Working against what you are doing (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 11:58:42 PM EST

is work of a sort.

Explaining, in excruciating detail, why you are just plain wrong on all of this is "work."

I'm no political consultant it is true, just a citizen, expressing my views.

Would that you were doing no "work" on the issue.

Trying to fob off the stuff you guys are writing over there as meaningful and helpful I guess you consider work. I consider it harmful work.


ok then (none / 0) (#20)
by Matt Stoller on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 07:47:50 AM EST

You can assert you are correct or that you are explaining something, but that doesn't make it so. Your assertions seem pretty incoherent to me. Try to do a better job explaining yourself. Or you can keep insulting everyone who doesn't understand what you are talking about while pretending that you are valiant.

It's pretty simple, actually. I don't understand your arguments, or to the extent that I understand them, they seem like nonsense. That might make me stupid, but that shouldn't matter to you if you're trying to persuade me of their true rightness. Maybe you can try again and explain them again with brevity and insight, and convince me and the millions of people working against this war without the sneering insults. Or you can organize to try and do something different with different social networks. You're a lawyer, you can start a PAC or engage in activism if you wanted to.

But you aren't taking either of these paths, are you? No. You're not.


To begin withdrawal from Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 08:54:15 AM EST

is a huge task. I understand why you are choosing the road that you are. Fully educating the masses though is always the first place to begin.....pushing this through is silencing debate and people like Mikulski are playing the "soldier card" instead of doing their own work! I really really really do not enjoy any Congressperson standing up there and making insinuations that if this bill doesn't pass my husband could go without pay and my family could go without benefits. Shame on her! That is a flat out lie! I haven't enjoyed Republicans playing the "soldier card" by saying that if you don't support the Iraq War you aren't supporting your troops but I really don't enjoy it when Dems play that tear jerking card either! The soldiers basic needs are met until next October unless someone starts stealing money from places they aren't supposed to.....pushing this through is silencing debate, insulting the American people and treating them like mushrooms, and in the end probably lengthening the Iraq War.


Nope, aint gonna let that pass (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 05:59:16 PM EST

Tracy, 'm sorry but that is just flat wrong.

The war exists.

The soldiers are involved in the war.

If you don't support the war, then you aren't supporting what the soldiers are invloved in.

If the terrorist sees that you aren't supporting the war, they see that as being on their side.

(Note. That's what the enemy sees. Not what you mean.)

If you aren't supporting what the soldier is involved in, then you aren't supporting the soldier.

It really is just that simple.

If you have problems with that, just think of a working mom who has a husband who claims to support women's rights, but doesn't make a bed, make a meal or change a diaper, etc.

In other words, faith without work is dead.


: Do you talk with soldiers? (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:28:48 AM EST

I mean is there a soldier in uniform that you can just go up to and talk to right now? I talk to them every day and only about 1 in 5 feel that by my not supporting the war I'm not supporting them. The majority of the soldiers want out of Iraq and they are feeling like the American people have abandoned them. Sorry but you are wrong on this in the real world. My soldier is involved in a democracy. Sometimes that means having to go to war and sometimes not and the democracy is supposed to decide that. My soldier gives his oath to protect a democracy not protect a war!
In other words, faith without works is dead.

You don't want to be persuaded (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:28:11 AM EST

I am not writing for you.

Frankly Matt, you;re being rather disingenuous now.

You have never ever ever addressed any of my points. You still do not.

You have attacked me here with typical mindless "then what is youe planb and what are you doing about it?"

MY plan for now is to stop your plan and what I am doing about it is informing people that your plan sucks.

Fact is if you knew even a little about my plan you would not ask such a stupid question.


BTD (none / 0) (#24)
by taylormattd on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:03:19 PM EST

I don't think Matt was being disingenuous. I think (1) he genuinely doesn't understand what you are trying to say or what your point are; and (2) he is defensive because of the tone of your post(s).

I have very frequently over years enjoyed your analysis and passion, but on occassion, I have had difficulty following exactly what it is you are trying to say. And although I may not be as smart or have as good a pedigree as either you or Matt, I am also an attorney, so I don't think I have a reading comprehension problem, at least with respect to this particular issue.

I guess what I am saying is this: if your writing imputes evil motives to folks (i.e., "Yes, Chris wants the Iraq Debacle debate for the 2008 election") or uses name calling ("fools"), it is not going to be as effective as a coherent, substantive explanation of your position. Also, please remember that most people don't have an encyclopedic recollection of your fairly voluminous prior writings on this topic, so brushing them off with a "I've already written about that" isn't a particularly effective method of explaining your point of view.


I am sorry (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:14:38 PM EST

You do not understand. I do not know what to tell you.

IT has been broken down to its simplest terms. I can do no more than that.

Matt chooses not to understand. I know that you simply do not understand. Perhaps if you read others espousing my view you might understand it etter. I can not help you any more on this.


No, I do understand (none / 0) (#26)
by taylormattd on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:22:47 PM EST

you, and I know exactly where you are coming from - I'm not asking for you to explain anything to me.

I was just talking about what was going on with Matt.


Matt knows where I am coming from too (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:36:45 PM EST

He does not like it because it sheds a light on what;s wrong with what he is advocating for.

Matt, Chris and MYDD generally make a lot of noise about being the Progressive Netroots. They claim that mantle. They really did not play that role at all on this and it was and is wrong of them to claim that voting for the suppemental is the progressive view on this issue.

IT seems to me you are singularly critical of me and ignore this critical point. I don't think you have been fair to me and you have basically let Matt and Chris off the hook.

In short, I don't think your critique right in any wya.


: I'm sorry (none / 0) (#28)
by taylormattd on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 01:53:28 PM EST

BTD - I didn't mean for my post to be critical of your approach regarding funding or the supplemental, and I wasn't really commenting on the validity of Matt or Chris' positions regarding what should or shouldn't happen in the "netroots", for that matter.
Rather, I simply read your post regarding Chris and MyDD, and I felt like you were going beyond substantive criticism in that you read malicious intent into Chris' motives ("Chris wants the Iraq Debacle debate for the 2008 election") and you called the folks at MyDD "fools".
I just thought that this, along with a wholly understandible difficulty in explaining a position that has many variables, was likely the reason Matt was defensive and doesn't understand what you are saying.