home

House Dem Leaders Postpone Iraq Supplemental Vote

House Dem Leadership still twisting arms to get the votes for their terrible, harmful, politically disastrous Iraq supplemental funding bill:

The Iraq debate is scheduled to begin Thursday afternoon on the House floor, but the final vote was delayed by a day to give leaders more time to build support for a measure that has proved to be one of the most significant tests of the new Democratic Congress.

Shelve the bill House Dem Leadership. Start over. This bill is just plain horrible.

The 2006 election was won for the Dems on Iraq. They have to work hard to end the war. This bill is not that. The freshmean members who know they won on this issue know this:

The debate over influencing the administration’s war strategy has roiled the party’s caucus, particularly the newly elected members who came to Washington on a wave of discontent over the war.

The consternation among Democrats on the left and the right has made the outcome of the vote far less certain than leaders had hoped, particularly after respected figures like Representative John Lewis, a liberal Georgia Democrat, declared his opposition, saying, “I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war.”

. . . 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 — and complicated — than she had imagined. . . .

When she returned to her district last weekend and told constituents that she planned to support the Iraq legislation because it had a specific troop withdrawal date, she said she encountered “no murmuring, but screaming.” Even her family was furious about her decision, she said. “I was pretty clear that I was against this war, and it is a shock for people to hear me say that I’m supporting the supplement,” Ms. Shea-Porter said Wednesday. “I would have preferred it to happen faster, but I’m not a Congress of one.”

You have one vote Representative. You know what you promised in your campaign. Honor your promises.

Indeed, the entire Democratic Party promised something better. They better deliver. Or they will suffer the consequences in November 2008.

< John Edwards Campaign to Go On | What A DC Media TypeThinks of the House Iraq Supplemental >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Liars (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    These Dems that ran on an Anti-War platform are liars - LIARS! Well, maybe just ignorant. Or, just opportunistic. And if they are lying, ignorant opportunists then they are probably politicians.

    Short rant (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by wayleftofcenter on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    This whole thing is a nightmare. They're GIVING HIM WHAT HE WANTS!!! 100B give or take. And they actually BELIEVE King George will march down to Congress on a regular basis to give them a "progress report"?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

    So much for ending the war-as they all were beating their chests during their re-election campaigns. I've had it with these guys already. So I hope it doesn't pass.
    Sorry to rant. Getting off my soapbox now.


    The Dem leadership (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    and pro bill progressives like David Sirota continue to (mis)underestimate George W. Bush.

    Something is seriously disconnected here. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are selling out, and they are acting like they just don't care what the poeple who gave them the power they have now thinks.

    In short - they are acting just like Bush and the rethugs were before they lost the House and the Senate last November - and acting just like Bush and the rethugs are still acting.

    Why the sellout?

    When do we get a shot of Pelosi flipping the bird? Or kissing Gonzo?

    Seling Out? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    The bill makes no sense to me. Who do you think that they are selling out to?

    If most Americans are against the war and most Iraqis want the US out who is calling the shots here?  Obviously not the voters.

    Parent

    I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    I wish I did know. I wish I knew what to do about it. I think they will go down to a defeat as bad if not worse than the the rethugs did last year because of this, if this bill is passed.

    I think the way to stop doing something is to simply "stop" doing it. Period. You cannot be half pregnant. Nor can you be half a murderer. I also think that the majority thinks the way I do - that they want this war stopped. Now. Not next year... maybe. But NOW.

    David Sirota made some very persuasive arguments yesterday that Progressives should vote for this bill, as a sort of tactical way of getting via the slow road to a withdrawal from Iraq. From some angles I can see some merit in some of what he said. It could work. But the price is too high.

    I think that his vision of politicking the way to and end slowly tries too hard to avoid facing and accepting responsibility for the death and maiming that will neccessarily occur taking his route. He will and does argue of course that those things are happening now - and he's right - but he calls that recognition "start[ing] from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be".

    I see the same thing and I call it avoidance of or refusal to accept responsibility. I call it being an accessory to murder.

    He finds a way to convince himself that he will be able to pass that blame back to the rethugs.

    I don't. For me to go his route would mean accepting being an accessory.

    There have been too many moral accessories to death and murder and war for profit, either overt, or through inaction. I do not intend to become one after all this time.

    Too many people have died already. Maybe David is ready to take responsibility for more. I am not. He will not be able to shift the blame. The Democrats are buying this Debacle now. And they, and the world, will pay for it dearly. End it NOW. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have the power to do so. They refuse to use it.

    They have sold out to a set of ideas, if not to more than that, that will be their downfall.

    And the death of how many more?

    Parent

    There are many things (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    we can do to assauge ourselves of being accessories to this and all wars. But, the fact is we are all accessories to the murder around the world in the name of the AMerican empire. If we recieve benefit, it can be argued, we are accessories.

    You and David have a disagreement in opinions. Neitther of you is more or less culpable for the war as it is, or for how it will end.

    David makes an argument and it is a compelling one. He might be wrong, but he is taking a stand based on conviction. Like you, his stance is courageous for those he alinates and those he insults. But, he believes in his opinion. That does not make him an accessary to murder. As an American, or as a member of the privileged anywhere, he is an accessary. He is doing what he can to make being an accessary manageable and thus is working for change.

    I admire the conviction of BTD, yourself and others here. I agree with it and feel, tactically, it is good that many are making this opinion loudly known to the congresspeople and representatives in Washington. However, there is an argument, and a good one, for the democrats - once the noise has been made and the political world "as is" holds steady to the winds currently blowing from those who are asking for a stronger bill - to come together in unison and vote for this bill, despite it being inadequate morally. You've heard that argument and dismissed it, and I respect that. But, when the time comes, holding Pelosi or other democrats accountable for a pragmatic decision will be politically dumb - and play into the hands of the prowar representatives on the opposite side of the aisle.

    Voting for this bill will not be politically damaging to the Democrats in 2008. Letting this bill lead to devisiveness in the party will be much harder to overcome. Pelosi is the one to put the pressure on, but in the end she is leading and democrats benefit by rallying behind her. The tactic of showing her that she is wrong and attempting to dissuade her from her decision is commendable and a worthy goal. If you fail in that effort, then, if defeating rethugs is the goal, you get steadfastly behind her.

    If your goal is to throw out the power-elite, rethugs,dems and all, then perhaps politics is not the choice for change you should be seeking.

    Parent

    You might be right. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    Voting for this bill will not be politically damaging to the Democrats in 2008.

    Since they look like they are finished already. And if they are - then the past 7 years is what you've got for the forseeable future.

    There is such a thing as moral accessory.

    Parent

    Well, again, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    I am glad there is the progressive wing of the democratic party attempting to hold democrats accountable to progressive issues. However, I think, that the dems are making progress this year on many issues. I am quite please with having a majority, holding and askig for hearings and submitting subpeonas. I would not take these changes lightly. I also would want to keep that advantage, and not hand it back to the Rethugs.

    The Dems are coming alive, and discovering their power. Bush and this adminsittration recognizes that they have to take this power into account. Of course, I want this power to lead to an immediate ending of the war and an impeachment. What I want and what can be done are two different things. That doesn't mean you stop attempting to achieve what you want, only as Mick says, "you can't always..."

    That's why I say keep the pressure up, and think it is good tactics to keep the argument simple and say either you support the war or you end the funding of it, even if the argument is not that simple. The public rarely understands a complex argument and the readers at TL are no exception. But, the fact is, it is not as simple as that and eventually, the progressives will need to make this admission when they redirect their anger towards this administration and those that support it. That is, if the progressives can be pragmatic.  

    Parent

    Well, let's see (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:43:49 PM EST
    At the rate of about, what - only 3 or so soldiers dying every day in Iraq - another year is only about another thousand or so. And only about maybe another hundred or so thousand Iraqis (give or take ten or twenty or fifty thousand) killed. Lot's more where they both came from, right? They're only theoretical numbers any way. Not REAL people?

    Ahhh... what the hell - lets ease up on them and cut them some slack, hey? After all - what the rush? And it keeps the oil price low.

    Too complex an argument for the simple public to understand?

    Parent

    Right, Good tactics, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:55:46 PM EST
    for now,

    put in terms of numbers of American soldiers. Get the public to believe this over the next week or so and Pelosi will hear. Perhaps, she will recognize that the blue dogs will also have recognized the shifting of the political wind and cave to the pressure they are hearing from their cnstituents. Then, You've won, by making the argument simple and raising the ire of the public and having morality on your side to boot.

    But, there is the chance it doesn't work.

    What then?

    I know you believe the argument, too. But, that doesn't make it simple or right. The war machine is built. The goals have to be long term as well. If you lose, (if the progressive pressure to get this bill thrown out-means that dems unite behind NO anti-Iraq war bill at all) then the war machine continues unabated for much longer and potentially kills many many more. Lose sight of long term objectives and your convictions might just lead to worse results. I am not saying they will, I am just saying it is important to recognize that they can (and in this case, in all probability, holding steadfastly to these convictions will - though, I could be wrong).

    Parent

    Wrong - bad tactics. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    Don't assume agreement from. You are getting nowhere.

    Parent
    I go into this (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:07:10 PM EST
    knowing that.

    We've gone round before. I don't expect to get anywhere with you. Mostly, just exercising my mind against an imaginary opponent with you sitting in temporarily. I do that now and then, and you are always gracious with providing the arguments that I need from my imaginary interlocutor, so I can make my point. That it was missed by you is expected.

    My point was to others who might be interested or listening, not you.

    Thanks, though.

    Parent

    Your point is clear. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    You'll excuse the killing, and by doing so support it.

    Your point is clear.

    Parent

    As, well, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    Your're tactics are clear.

    The problem I am pointing out, is that casting your opponents - who are now ones supporting, or those giving support to those who support this bill - as acessories to murder might be good tactics and get you a better bill, but it also might not work.

    Parent

    Go argue it with the dead. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:03:15 PM EST
    And their mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters.

    Parent
    I don't pretend to.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:05:13 PM EST
    really understand any of this political manuevering we've ben reading about at length lately...this bill, that bill, supplemental and on and on...to me it's all just talk while the bombs go off and good people die and bad people cash big checks.

    Peaches hit on the only true option available....

    If your goal is to throw out the power-elite, rethugs,dems and all, then perhaps politics is not the choice for change you should be seeking.

    iow...pitchforks and torches.  

    Parent

    Pitchforks and Torches (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:37:15 PM EST
    That is what I am saying. Political change happens slowly, radical change only happens when people hit the streets and put a scare into those rich white guys.

    However, I'm careful about advocating radical change. As our man Hank (Bukowski) warned in his Notes of a Dirty Old Man, during the chaotic days of the sixties and street protests, to the ones advocating for a revolution - (paraphrasing from a shoddy memory) Baby, A revolution isn't pretty and I ain't no fan of blood flowing in the street. You can count me out of your little revolution. You all think it's romantic, only because you haven't lived through it.

    Theres a revolution going on in Iraq. I don't want none of that going on over here. We had one civil war and I don't see having another benefitting most Americans or the world. I think I'd still rather lay my bets with our current political situation and work for change with the system we got. But, still, I like to give the old boys a good scare now and again. For one its fun and two its good politics to remind them who the majority is.  

    Parent

    Dirty Old Man.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 08:37:29 AM EST
    great book, I've re-read it many times.  Hank also said something like (paraphrasing) "If the bastards piss me off enough I might have to get in the game just yet."

    I'm too selfish and concerned with self-preservation to want a revolution...I can admit that.  But it's a fact....revolution is the only way to end the war "tomorrow"....everything else is just talk....just bs.

    Parent

    Right, you are (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    a revolution is the only way. But, I don't have that fire in my belly. Actually, I do, but I don't like riling up the masses. The way it always works is they put you on the front lines, the propagandizers, and then when the shooting starts or the jackboots begin marching and clubs start swinging, they leave you standing there with no backup, while they hide and strategize.

    I don't trust anyone. I don't trust Bush, but I don't trust others who think they know. Especially, the ones who spend there times writing on keyboards acting tough and calling names. Those are the ones to watch out for, because they want change now, but when the people hit the streets, they won't be anywhere to be found.

    Thats when I go back to Hank and say to myself, "just give me my wine, give me my women, and give me this dirty old city just as it is."

    Parent

    We think alike.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    in this regard Peaches.  Me, you, and my main man Charles B.

    PS....My fav. story in the book is the one where the bettors storm the track at Santa Anita after something shady happened with the para-muteul payout.  I just love that one...being a horseplayer and all.

    Parent

    I am partial (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    to Post Office, only because it was my introduction to him. Inspired me to pick up a temporary job at the PO one christmas season back and ended up staying over 7 years. I like all of his stuff, letters, stories, essays and especially, his poems.

    Did you see the documnetary Born into this. Good stuff. I had a video cassette tape of some segments from a European documentary that was a few hours long. Cool stuff, but I lent it out to a guitar player a few years back and I havn't seen it since. Oh well.

    I think What I Like about him is his refusal to conform to anything. He was a living breathing anarchis. If your an anarchist you don't belong to any movement. Buk wasn't advocating anything other than being true to yourself. My favorite line from  him came from a biography written by one of his fellow writers. I'm not at home so I don't remember what the guys name was. He described hanging around Buk as magic. He said one of Buks favorite sayings was to anyone who said they were bored, "Only the boring get bored." I use that one on my kids. I'm also careful not to get bored, anymore. But,the beauty of the line is it works for so many things. Like "Only the Angry, get mad." or "only the Pissy, get pissed." You realize that all the emotion you carry around describing the world really does emenate from within. That is what is so refreshing with him. He was a street wise mystic.

    I do enjoy his race track stories, but not enough to start spending my time at one. I just never took to spending money that way. Too conservative, I suppose.

    Parent

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by profmarcus on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    it pains me greatly to see so many democrats supporting this as if it was something good... i agree with you, it's not...

    http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by wayleftofcenter on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:30:33 PM EST
    they are worried abutr keeping their jobs. To heck with US, their constituents.
    Disgusting.

    Yes, but (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    Don't their jobs depend on voters. The voters have made it clear that this war should end ASAP.

    The only thing I can think of is AIPAC and other lobbies that are, in effect, acting like mobsters.

    It is crazy that a small right wing group, that does not reflect the wishes of the large majority of Jews in America can weild such power.

    Parent

    jobs... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by selise on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    their jobs don't only depend on the voters - it also depends on their ability to raise money (to buy tv ads).

    btw - i don't think that AIPAC represents jewish or israeli interests, although that is their claim.  my working hypothesis is that they represent the military industrial complex (and all the $ that go with that).

    Parent

    4 hours of debate.... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by selise on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    i just called my congressmember's office (again) to ask him not to support the supplemental funding - he voted against the war to begin with, so there is hope.

    was told that he was on the floor and would be making a statement soon (and would say what his position is).

    there are dems with a conscience to support.

    fingers crossed mine is one of them.

    The fact is (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    unless Congress cuts off the money, which Bush CAN'T provide for himself, he's shown over and over that he'll simply ignore or obfuscate to circumvent legal restrictions he finds inconvenient. Congress has only two real controls remaining to it under these circumstances for dealing with this lawless administration - impeachment and funding control. It's already irresponsibly taken the one off the table. Does it really want to give up its last remaining brake on this reckless president? Heads up, congressional Dems - we'll remember in 2008 who doesn't and who does.

    Twisting arms because the press are (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by mentaldebris on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    a;ready touting it as a possible "win" for Pelosi. Apparently she wants a "win". Win for her maybe, but a frakking disaster for Americans and the troops.

    You disappoint, Nancy, you truly do. Just hope for your sake Americans will be dumb enough to swallow this as "progress" and not wake up to the crass sell-out until after the '08 elections. That's what everyone is hoping for, I suspect. More of the same but the press telling a distracted country it's a win.

    Yay for you!/snark

    It's just a game to you DC politicos, huh? So while America continues to bleed out blood and treasure you compromise with the worst leader this country has ever experienced and pretend it's progress. Yeah, you definitely disappoint.

    Politicians are like diapers.  They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.  ~Author Unknown

    2008 - More of the same.

    A win today (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    but a loss in Novemebr 2008.

    Parent
    More than likely. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by mentaldebris on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    There's always the possibility Dems actually fight on the DOJ fiasco and it goes to the SCOTUS and they rule for Bush. At that point the rule of law in America is dead and following politics would be a complete waste of time.

    RIP land of the free, home of the brave.

    What I don't get is the insistence of "pragmatic" intelligent people thinking somehow this is a win. Bush calls the shots -- the bill says Bush calls the shots.  Which part of the last six years did these people miss? There's nothing pragmatic in allowing Bush to call the shots. There is no "win" letting him decide anything. It's completely insane.

    Parent

    Keep the pressure up, absolutely, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peaches on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    But remember this is politics. Don't be so quick to condemn Pelosi.

    Good discussion and points today on Democracy Now, that lays out why this bill is bad, point given by Rep. Woolsey and why it is good politics, point given by RObert Borosage. Give both perspective's a good listen, and then keep up the pressure, but remember, in the end the political victories are decided by pragmatic decisions, despite the vitriol against pragmatists here recently.

     

    it isn't Democratic lawmakers who will (none / 0) (#13)
    by jennifer poole on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:53:46 PM EST

    "suffer the consequences" in 2008 if the GOP wins back Congress. Democratic lawmakers who lose to Republicans won't lose their privileged positions in society, their mansions (see Feinstein's new $16 million home), health benefits, pensions, connections, resumes that will get them easy well-paid lobbying jobs or book contracts, etc. etc.

    It's the everyday American people and the rest of the world who will be the losers, if the GOP controls the White House again.

    Taking back the country by electing candidates who represent the best interests of their average constituents, instead of Big Money campaign donors and lobbyists is a serious long-term project. It isn't as easy as winning 1 election with a hanging-by-a-thread "majority" in the Senate, while returning most (all?) of the Dem incumbents who voted "yes" on the war.

    Yes, of course I'm in favor of Congress setting a date to withdraw from Iraq that isn't two months before the 2008 election. yes, I stood on the street on Sunday with the "No More Money 4 War" locals. (Great quote from John Lewis!)

    Of course I'm disappointed that we don't have an anti-Iraq-occupation majority in Congress -- but I'm not surprised. Why should Hilary Clinton take an anti-Iraq-occupation stance when she beat the pants off her anti-Iraq-occupation challengers?

    And I hope this delay means more of us are able to let their representatives know that a stronger stance is what we want -- and what we believe is good politics, too.

    at present, what people are seeing in the headlines is simple: "Dem bill sets a date for withdrawal from Iraq." Most people know no more than that -- and they like it. Good on you to keep on working (like progressive Dems in Congress like Woolsey, Waters) to explain why this bill isn't good enough, and in fact is worse than "not good enough."

    if the bill passes, will it be more important to you to be "right" -- to be able to say "I told you so," to the Dems as the GOP takes back the Congress and the White House in 2008?

    Or to continue to work to end the Iraq occupation, and to elect enough better Democrats to revoke the 2002 National Security strategy that avows America's best interests are served by the stamp of the boot = "total military dominance"?

    I assure you, BTD, I've seen it over and over and over again -- when progressives give up on the Democratic Party, those who like things just fine the way they are heave a sigh of relief, because it makes it that much easier for them to win their next primary, while avoiding a lot of heat.

    I was outside the Democratic Party for a long, long time -- and it took a long long time (and Howard Dean) to realize that my efforts to work outside the two-party system, to disdain the Democrats as "the lesser of two evils" might make ME feel better, but were achieving no positive results on the national level.

    So by dint of all this experience, it seems obvious to me, the "real" way to ensure that Congressional Democrats who don't work to end the occupation feel "the consequences" is to change business as usual -- and voting for a third party DOES NOT change business as usual -- and to gird ourselves for supporting challengers, even in such "impossible" races as the 2006 Clinton/Tasini primary. Not to reward those 100% in favor of "the stomp of the boot" with victory. Those who think "Democrats" will "learn" from being defeated, and will come back stronger and more progressive the next time, have been proved wrong over and over again in the last 30 years.

    well, that's about it, I guess. again, good luck with pressing your case, and thanks for all you do. missing you at dkos. I'll call Mike Thompson again today, to suggest that a deadline of March 2008 might be a compromise more anti-Iraq-occupation progressives could tolerate.

    Defeating it hjelps their chances.

    Sorry, you assume that this bill is smart politically.

    It is idiotic politics.

    I am the pragmatist here. Those supporting this bill the politicasl fools.

    Parent

    no, I don't assume that, at all. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jennifer poole on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    You have misread my post. as always, I agree a stronger stance is not only the right thing to do, but is better politics, too -- let alone to fire up the base, there are far more people who do not vote at all because they can't distinguish the difference between the two major parties, than the "swing" voters so avidly pursued by the dem consultants.

    Nonetheless, I'm not willing to sit back and say, oh well, "The Dems" made another stupid political move that will come back to bite them (just like Kerry's vote for IWR), so I'm giving up on them, and will feel plenty schadenfreude when "they" lose. My point is, I hope that's where you end up, too -- still a fighting Dem, instead of giving up and turning to a third party.

    Parent
    Who wrote this? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    "if the bill passes, will it be more important to you to be "right" -- to be able to say "I told you so," to the Dems as the GOP takes back the Congress and the White House in 2008? "

    That was a nasty thing you wrote.

    I think I took you just as you intended, as an insult to me.

    Parent

    no, dammit, it's not an insult. unless it's an (none / 0) (#22)
    by jennifer poole on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    insult to me, too, as I've said over and over again, that's the way I thought for many years, that somehow I was "getting back" at the Democratic Party by refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    when Gore lost, I felt plenty schadenfreude, and said "I told you so" many times. I was right, no doubt about it. Just as I was right to think Kerry fatally handicapped by his vote for the IWR. nonetheless, I sure wish I'd been WRONG, and we'd gotten Gore (or even Kerry, sigh) in the White House.

    My question is not an insult, but an invitation to see things through the same lens I see things through now.

    and please, I wrote it in the FUTURE tense -- as I've said several times, I wish you good luck with what you're doing now, and I completely support the anti-Iraq-occupation progressives' fight on this bill. i'm talking about what you WILL do after "the Democrats" make yet another move that muddies the politics of contrast. Will you stay and fight? I certainly hope so!

    Parent
    An invitation? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 03:33:19 PM EST
    So you insult me by thinking that is how I think.

    Sheesh. insult me one more time. This is so enlightening.

    Parent

    all I know is I saw a comment here somewhere (none / 0) (#30)
    by jennifer poole on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    from you about contemplating going third-party, because of the Democrats' failure on this bill. I have had experience with bitter disappointment in the Democratic Party, and did go third party because of it. I regret that now in 2007, when national politics are more right-wing than I ever could have dreamed of when I signed up for the Green Party all those years ago because the Democratic Party wasn't progressive enough. Again, I hope you don't abandon the Democratic Party, no matter if I was mistaken to think my own experience, my own feelings about Democrats vs. third-party politics could be relevant to your own thinking on the issue.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#29)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    I think Jennifer Poole is trying to keep progressives from bolting the Dem Party. I see her point (I'm probably a prime target for her argument). It's easy to see that she did not mean to impugn your integrity. Stop claiming she's insulting you. She's on your side.  

    thanks. not only am I on BTD's side, (none / 0) (#34)
    by jennifer poole on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    but as he knows I greatly respect his thinking and his point of view, and the way he writes about the necessity of "the politics of contrast."

    to repeat: I hope BTD keeps on fighting inside the party, instead of out. And I hope you do the same!

    Parent
    Jennifer (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:06:20 PM EST
    I would come back to the fold if Dean or Kucinich got more party support. Til then, the rest of the Dem elite are just aristocratic powermongers. And the war will continue.