Reid-Feingold: Wakeup Call To Progressives and the Netroots

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 16, 2007 at 11:59:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Today's vote on Reid-Feingold should have a salutary effect on the creeping hometeamism that had captured progressive activists and the Netroots and brings into stark relief what still ails the Democratic Party - political cowardice.

For months the cheerleading from progressives and the Netroots for the House Supplemental and all the noisemaking coming from the Democratic Party has been a serious impediment to efforts to truly end the Iraq Debacle.

We kept hearing about the need to "ratchet up the pressure" on Bush and the Republicans. I think it is clear now that the pressure needs to be placed on those segments of the Democratic Party that likes to talk a lot about ending the war but clearly has felt no pressure from its base to do what is necessary to end this catastrophic war.

Jim Webb told President Bush, Democrats would show the way, as did others. It is clear that Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, et al, have no intention of leading on Iraq.

Yet again, as in 2006, it will require the base of the Democratic Party to lead its leaders. This vote today leaves no doubt what must be done by progressives, the Democratic grassroots and the Netroots. We must all take on those segments of our Party who do not want to end the war, but rather merely say they want to end the war.

And for this important insight, today was a good day.

< DNA Frees Man After 19 Years in Prison | Paul Wolfowitz May Resign Today >

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.

Reid-Feingold: Wakeup Call To Progressives and the Netroots | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You know (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Maryb2004 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:22:15 PM EST

I don't excuse McCaskill's vote at all. And I've called her office and expressed my displeasure.

But I suspect that this whole vote was a charade perpetrated by Reid. All the freshmen senators vote no on cloture -- they can later claim that they didn't vote against the bill, they just wanted more time to debate. And in the meantime the weak bill was brought up and passed.

It allows Obama and Clinton to vote yes for cloture -- but never have to actually vote in favor.

In the meantime, the weak bill goes to conference and the Feingold bill is still in their back pocket to be brought up again.

Possible?

: Trying to figure out how not voting (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:05:58 PM EST

helps McCain and Elizabeth Dole.

We have allies in the house (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:23:24 PM EST

It is good news that we don't start frojm zero. It is bad news that Obama continues to propound a useless "strategy."

Ho Hum. Stabbed in the back again. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Pneumatikon on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:29:52 PM EST

So what do you expect from the leadership of this party? Its staightforward really: Republicans rob the bank and Democrats drive the getaway car. Clinton loved doing that for George H.W. Bush. He's got a sick need to be loved by that hateful old vampire.

I'm convinced Jimmy Carter was the last President we ever had who wasn't mentally ill. Siiiick sick people have been running this country ever since.

(And let me be on record by predicting History will treat his foreign policy very differently than we do. Jimmy was quite a clever man.)

Lots of Demo apologists (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by CA JAY on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:44:48 PM EST

at the Big Orange remain clueless. Defunding is the only way to end the war before Jnauary 2009.

You see, this is where (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Geekesque on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:18:19 PM EST

you completely lose me:

We must all take on those segments of our Party who do not want to end the war, but rather merely say they want to end the war.

It is this assumption--that people who do not agree with the defunding approach must not really want to end the war--that will undermine the effort you are proposing.

The fact of the matter is that very smart people with similar goals may have radically different ideas as to what remedies or strategies are necessary to achieve those goals.

If you want to win support for your approach, you'd best be advised to actually persuade people that your approach is best, rather than to assume that failure to agree with you means that someone doesn't want us to leave.

How... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:13:18 PM EST

If you want to win support for your approach, you'd best be advised to actually persuade people that your approach is best

How would you suggest continuing to fund the occupation, which has abolutely nothing to do with funding the troops, can be expected to convince anyone that doing so is moving to end it? Or is anything other than 'here's a democratic versions of the occupation - new and improved - better than the rethug version'?

: Less rust? New paint job? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:15:24 PM EST

Same old deathtrap underneath the shine? What?

: The bottom line is that when Republicans (1.00 / 1) (#35)
by Geekesque on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:28:19 AM EST

control 50 votes in the Senate (on the issue of Iraq) and control the branch of government that has the authority to control troop movements, you're going to need to work with Republicans to end the war.
That's what Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, John Kerry and others have been saying.

Uh huh (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:27:16 PM EST

What's the plan? Veto proof majorites? Get out of here with that BS.

Go sell that to the saps at dkos.

Don't bring it here.


What convinced me BTD's defunding (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by oculus on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:55:54 PM EST

meme is the only way to go is his posts on the Constitutional powers reserved to Congress compared to those reserved to the President. Perhaps a refresher course is called for here.


Your site, your rules. (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by Geekesque on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:03:43 AM EST

I personally view strategies on ending the war to more properly serve as a source of debate rather than as a Shibboleth, but to each their own.


You havent answered (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:09:21 AM EST

any of the questions put to you here.


What I meant was (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:33:44 AM EST

there are no saps here who will buy the ridiculous notion you sell that Republicans will provide a veto-proof majority for ending the war.

Hence, don't bring that BS here because people here know better.

We've been debating these issues here for 4 months and do not even take seriously the ridiculous notion you foward.

There is no reason for you to forward an idea that has been utterly demolished at this site for 4 months.

You're better of arguing for impeachment. Whicxh is just as likely, meaning not at all.


My basic position has been that (none / 0) (#34)
by Geekesque on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:25:00 AM EST

political pressure and consensus, not institutional authority, will lead to the beginning of withdrawal.

Don't believe me?

Here's what some sap said this morning:

"A broad bi-partisan consensus is emerging . . . [i]f enough if our Republican colleagues join with us, the President will have to listen."

The sap in question is Harry Reid.

To be clear: The Reid of Reid-Feingold went on the floor of the Senate this morning and made statements in line with my own.

As did your guy Chris Dodd yesterday. Here's what he said:

John Warner today offered a resolution, which I didn't vote for, but is already moving to set benchmarks. You're beginning to see, among rank and file Republicans, a great unease about where this President is taking us on his policy, so I'm confident that today was the beginning of the end.

The purported defunding push is Kabuki Theater, a political pressure tactic. Harry Reid has no intent of defunding this. Neither does Chris Dodd. Their goal is to pressure the Republicans into abandoning Bush.


Then they are fools too (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:46:33 AM EST

if they REALLY believe that.

Harry Reid said IF. You say will.

They are pols. They are saying things to best position their goals. They are not fools and they do not believe the GOP will join them.

But most effing importantly, UNLIKE YOU, they support Reid-Feingold.

You demonstrate yet again not understanding the roles that are played in this. You are NOT aDem pol in the Congress. You are NOt the grand strategist.

The Netroots suffers from the same delusion. So does Move On.

If we do not push this, no one will.

In short, I have heard all you have to say on this and frankly, do not need to hear it again.

Come September, everyone in the Dem Party will be for defunindg on a date certain, or they will be for a blank check.

Because, even though you don't seem to know it, those are the two choices.

But my point stands, your cheerleading approach has been noted and demolished here for four moths. No need to repeat it.


Come September, one of us (none / 0) (#37)
by Geekesque on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:01:46 PM EST

will look absolutely foolish and one will look prescient.

As long as this debacle begins to end, I really don't care.

As a final note, I point out that if folks want defunding to become a viable strategy, they really ought to be out there explaining why it's viable and why the objections raised to it are invalid.

Restating it as dogma doesn't convince anyone.


: Stating why (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:46:01 PM EST

is all I have done for 4 months.
You choose to ignore what is written.
But let's face it, I am a lonely warrior on this.
The Netroots and Progressives have become useless Dem cheerleaders when it comes to Iraq.
They help not one whit in the goal of ending the war.
It is a disgrace. I give Markos credit, he admits that he is NOT working working for that. He states openly that only after the 2008 elections can Iraq be ended.
The naive fools, or disigenuous ones are folks like you and Move On and MYDD and others. Very bad show from all of you.
Veto proof majorities. You might as well rail about impeachment. At least it would be honest.

The Republicans knew (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by Alien Abductee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 08:19:26 PM EST

it was the best approach when they actually wanted to stop a Clinton military action, and they didn't hesitate to use it:

Some have suggested that cutting off funds for the war could mean cutting off funds for the troops. They would have people believe that, under my approach, our brave troops will be left to fend for themselves in Iraq, without training, equipment or resources.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war would in no way endanger our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated -- as this amendment proposes -- Congress can ensure that our troops are safely redeployed without harming our troops
For those who don't believe this can be done, let me cite an example from not too long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an amendment sponsored by the senior Senator from West Virginia cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. 76 Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, including Senators Levin, Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison, Lugar, McConnell, Specter, Stevens and Warner. Did those Senators jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform?
Of course not, Mr. President. All of these members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.
That same day, several Senators supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Senator McCain would have simply eliminated funding to keep U.S. troops in Somalia. Funds would only have been provided to withdraw U.S. troops.

What's lacking here isn't the "right" approach but political courage on the part of Dems to commit to an effective course of action on Iraq.


Even McCain (none / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:20:30 PM EST

argued for defunding and withdrawal then. BTD wrote a post about it on May 01 here. YouTube video of McCain here.


: The more this factual scenario and McCain's (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by oculus on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:29:50 PM EST

advocacy for it comes to the attention of the Congress and public the better.

I'm generally with (none / 0) (#13)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:12:20 PM EST

BTD on this, but you raise some good points.


Such as? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 16, 2007 at 05:27:53 PM EST

That there are people who (none / 0) (#19)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:05:06 PM EST

do genuinely want to end the war but have their heads up their asses on how to do it.


What is confusing about (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:34:13 PM EST

not paying for something they say don't want? What is confusing about people who say they want to end it but keep trying to convince you to pay for it?


: I wish I knew (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:38:46 PM EST

You'll have to ask them why their heads are so firmly logged up their rectums on this.

Geekesque is wrong; QED. n/t (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:52:11 PM EST

Falwell & 30 Yrs of Appeasement. NBC (none / 0) (#23)
by seabos84 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:44:53 PM EST

last night - ya know NBC ... the biggest propaganda outfit going, arm of GE ?

NBC reported / reminded how Jerry Falwell got 12 million voters registered from '76 to '80

do you know who was elected fascist in 1980

oooops ... I mean who was elected President?

do you know that RayGun won with about 50.7 of those who voted, which, by the way, was only about 54 or 56% of those who were eligible to vote?

do you remember all the social service cuts - ya know like, to financial aid for college, whcih affected 20 year old me in more ways that one cuz my family was on welfare - all these cuts to fund scum at GE and Boeing and Halliburton

and the Dems at the time had more freaking excuses for rolling over - one of the 'best' was RayGun's mandate! ha ha ha .507*.56 = a mandate!

Fast forward to hillary losing health care 1994 cuz ... booo hoooooo! the insurance companies LIED with harry and louise commercials! boooooooooooo - hoooooooooooo!
imagine 'health' insurance companies lying?

wow, is that like a fundementalist nut job lying for power to get some fascist like RayGun elected!

WOW! is bambi's mother still dead?

You know what undermines the Dems having a spine AND, by the way,

beating these fascists back to the antipodes?

these fascists who have done NOTHING but screw the little pee-ons since RayGun?

30 years of people like you with your "we're gonna scare the middle and lose" arguements.

If you're just mistaken in your beliefs, a part of me feels bad that I'm so mean to you.

Hopefully, like that DHinmi guy, you are profitting from the current lame-ness so at least you are benefitting from carrying the water of the losers. I can understand corruption - I don't agree with it, but, from being broke all my life, I don't know what the hell I'd do if someone was gonna pay me 250k a year to sing the praises of the sell outs.

rmm.


how to fix the u.s. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by orionATL on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:31:30 PM EST

nothing is going to happen to dislodge the bush administration from its dictatorial stand on american policies, domestic and foreign,

until americans go into the streets of washington in numbers, and repeatedly.

explicit, unambiguous, noisy public disapproval of the bush presidency's actions are the only real lever left to move bush and his satraps.

the courts and the doj have been stacked with bush loyalists
the democratic party in the congress does not have enough strength in numbers
the press has been bribed and intimidated by the republicans.

the only power center remaining is ordinary americans moving thru the streets of washington.

and yes

there will be counter-marches by fronts ginned up by the republican national committee claiming to be "concerned citizens for peace and democracy for all the world"

and there will be lots of arrests

and lots of media chit-chat about rogue citizens -unruly, unwashed, and unpatriotic.

but this is the only way out.

: Yes indeed (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by LarryE on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:38:23 PM EST

Quoting myself:

What will stop this war is tens of thousands of pissed-off Americans in the streets, over and over again, in the streets of DC, of New York, of Indianapolis, of Albuquerque, of Minot and Montpelier, Walla Walla and Wheeling, screaming "Out NOW!" Screaming it until the walls of Congress rock. Screaming it until Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have headaches. Screaming it until a withdrawal in 90 days or 120 days is the safe, "compromise" position.
March on.

I don't trust most of them. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by dkmich on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:12:20 PM EST

The only thing we can do is make damn sure they know we are watching them. We need to stay a pain in their arses so they are mindful of us when they are out there doing as they damn well please. Part that upsets me is that all they have to do is say no. No on trade, no on H-1B visas, no on funds for the war. Jeez! Even Nancy Reagan got that.

Let's support the "yeas" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Lora on Wed May 16, 2007 at 09:03:25 PM EST

They may need our support. In addition to "ratcheting up the pressure" on the rest of the dems, let's make sure we show our appreciation for those who voted "yea:"
(from the link in Jeralyn's post)

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Seems Like Bush Has Shown Webb The Way (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by MO Blue on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:02:54 AM EST

to stay in Iraq and WIN. From Webb's web site [http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=274450&]

Recent initiatives from Secretary of State Rice, Ambassador Crocker, and Admiral Fallon, the new commander of the Central Command, hold out the hope, if not the promise, that we might actually start to turn this thing around. Admiral Fallon has publicly stated that we must deal with Iran and Syria. Ambassador Crocker at this moment is arranging a diplomatic exchange with Iran. Secretary of State Rice has cooperated at the ministerial level in an environment where her Iranian counterpart was also at the table. And importantly, Admiral Fallon mentioned during his recent confirmation hearing that it is not the number of troops in Iraq that is important, but the uses to which they would be put. There is room for movement here, as long as the movement occurs in a timely fashion. An arbitrary cutoff date would, at this point, take away an important negotiating tool. Let's just hope that they use the tools we are providing them in an effective manner.

Seems that Webb has found the magical corner to turn. Will the insurgents be in their last throes soon?

: Disappointing--but then, he was a Republican. (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:21:13 AM EST

Votes like this (none / 0) (#4)
by CA JAY on Wed May 16, 2007 at 12:35:50 PM EST

play into Nader's 2000 theory that the major parties aren't really that different.

knee jerk reaction (none / 0) (#7)
by talex on Wed May 16, 2007 at 01:24:08 PM EST

Jim Webb told President Bush, Democrats would show the way, as did others. It is clear that Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, et al, have no intention of leading on Iraq. - Big Tent

Quite a knee jerk statement from someone who has no clue why those three voted as they did. clearly R-F was not going to pass. Harry knew it and so did Russ along with everyone else.

So the three could have had political reasons for voting as they did.

But Armando thinks it is better to slime them than to do a little homework before.

It is knee jerk reactions like this that make guys like Obey who is against the war and has been to refer to all of us as "idiot Liberals".

You do no one no favors Armando. all you are doing is expressing anger with no basis for reason in singling out these three.

dropping poll numbers (none / 0) (#9)
by chemoelectric on Wed May 16, 2007 at 02:15:37 PM EST

What is needed is for Democrats to do things like this and see their poll numbers drop, then get combative with Bush and see their poll numbers rise. That way the cowardly will fear being non-combative with Bush, and the less cowardly will know what the American people want, regardless of what the 'pundits' say the American people want.

Learning is more effective if the student is allowed to make errors.

Racheting up the pressure on Dems (none / 0) (#11)
by Alien Abductee on Wed May 16, 2007 at 04:28:11 PM EST

seems to be what Reid has in mind:

Wednesday's votes on Feingold and other proposals "will provide strong guidance to our conferees and help shape the conference negotiations we have ahead of us," said Reid....
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back Feingold's measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."
Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."