Can “Democrats,” “resolve” and “Iraq” be used in the same sentence without violating the Associated Press style manual guidelines? I traded my copy to a literate streetcorner pharmacist for a few days of anti-depression medication, so I don’t know. I do know that congressional Democrats will not be taking any action to hasten our exit from Iraq before George Bush leaves office.
A substantial number of Democrats are already reluctant to press the issue. The Petraeus/Crocker/Rice/Gates dog and pony show coming up in a few weeks will peel off more. Washington congressman Brian Baird, who voted against authorizing the invasion and still thinks it was a hideous blunder, told an Olympia newspaper after his recent trip to Iraq that “I think we’re making real progress” and “the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security.”
Baird’s take will resonate among Democrats who desperately want to avoid making a decision on Iraq. If you add together the ones who essentially support the administration’s position with the ones who think tweaks are necessary but that leaving is too scary — this includes proponents of the legislation that would withdraw all troops but the ones Bush thinks are essential — you probably have something close to a majority of Democrats in both chambers of Congress who have no intention of even considering withdrawal.
I have no advice for Democrats who want out of Iraq other than to throw your presidential primary support en masse to whichever candidate most clearly and believably articulates an exit plan: he may not win (and I use “he” advisedly), but you’ll feel less like a chump afterward. I do have some choice words for Democrats who lauded what they thought was Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s cunning strategy of incrementalism in pushing for a withdrawal, but there’s little point in publishing them since those Democrats will either be adapting to the reality as it dawns upon them — cognitive dissonance shields up! — or cursing themselves more effectively than I could.
The Washington Post has two relevant op-ed columns in tomorrow’s edition. One is by former Iraqi prime minister and (presumably) former CIA asset Ayad Allawi, the U.S. appointee who ran the country following the “transfer” of “sovereignty” in 2004; the other is by Jonathon Finer, a Post reporter who worked out of Baghdad for more than a year during the period when things there went well and truly to hell.
Allawi calls for the removal, by unspecified means, of current Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki and the implementation of a two-year phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, while Finer professes surprise that anyone takes seriously the commentary and pronouncements of pundits and politicians who partake of choreographed Iraq tours.
Finer names names, taking solid shots at right-wing talker Laura Ingraham, think-tankers Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon, and politicians including the Johns Kerry and McCain, Lindsey Graham, Russ Feingold, and others who, he says, are “guilty of using visits to gain credibility” for whatever views they brought with them on the plane.
His point is that a snapshot week in Iraq, however commendable the willingness to take the risk, isn’t any substitute for careful observation of our years there. The point I take from this discreet rant is that people — including in this instance Democratic people with legislative sway — who suspect that the invasion was a mistake and the occupation futile but are afraid to make the break, are likely to find signs of hope and absolution, or insulation, in totemic events like the Iraq visits, or the Petreaus® report and Allawi’s column, which excuses the U.S. of responsibility for the current state of affairs and asks for more time for the Iraqis to get their act together under shelter of our military.
The lack of clarity about the U.S. role in Iraq could be erased with a simple question to Petraeus when he makes his congressional appearance: “General, according to the counterinsurgency manual you wrote, how many U.S. troops are required, and for how long, to create a secure environment in which the Iraqi political process has some hope of proceeding successfully?”
The answer is roughly 520,000 troops — the counterinsurgency rule of thumb is 20 troops for each 1,000 locals; Iraq has, or had when we got there, a population of 26 million — for a decade or so. The question congressional Democrats like Brian Baird need to ask themselves is whether or not they’re willing to commit American lives and resources on that scale.
If so, we need a military draft and the willingness to spend $300 billion a year in Iraq instead of $100 billion. If not, we need to get out now. It’s no more complicated than that, and issues of national purpose or morality or responsibility are irrelevant until that question is answered.
[...] House Democrats set to abandon resolve on Iraq exit » This article link is from an article posted at BTC News: If It Says ‘News,’ It Must Be True [...]
As you no doubt noticed from the FISA revision vote, the Republicans and blue dog Democrats have a working majority that is not going to vote against the administration. There isn’t much the leadership can do to change that, assuming that it wants to.
Hey, Jack. Pelosi, at least, has a great deal of control over what bills come to the floor. So far, she’s exercised it to the benefit of GOP-oriented Democrats on both Iraq and FISA. She could arrange things so that those Democrats are put in the position of voting with Republicans against decent legislation rather than placing the majority of Democrats in the position of casting losing votes against the crappy bills that the GOP-Blue Dogs are passing.
Well, if they are motivated to pass something and the leadership doesn’t want to put it on the floor, virtually anything can be amended to do what the majority wants so it may just be a matter of bowing to the inevitable.
Voting on amendments can be blocked too, but even if that’s the case, Pelosi et al could do much more to put pressure on their colleagues. What’s the meaning of “leadership”?
What kind of pressure do you have in mind? They simply don’t agree with her much like Lieberman in the Senate.
Pork, committee assignments, campaign support … much like Lieberman in the Senate: why reward him with the chairmanship of one of the most powerful Senate committees when he’ll use it to undermine the agenda? But returning to my original point, why structure the votes so as to provide cover for Democrats who support the Republican agenda?
Exactly, Weldon. A strong leader doesn’t bow to the inevitable without first making sure that everyone knows which Democrats are opposed to Democratic bills and instead favor Republican bills. Besides speeches on the floor of the House, the leader holds press conferences and writes op-ed pieces, and she also makes sure that their constituents – who put them in office to oppose the war – know exactly what’s going on. Pelosi is doing none of that.
A strong leader also uses her power to assign committee memberships and to prevent bills benefiting those Democrats’ districts from ever making it to a vote. She threatens and cajoles. Look, if it’s a farm bill or a transportation bill – i.e., pork – she can allow Blue Dog Democrats to break with the party. But not on the war. She has to tell them that on a matter of this magnitude party discipline will be enforced, that they must vote with the party, or else they not only don’t get their bills, but their offices get moved to the third basement of the Capitol.
That’s the way it’s done, and Pelosi seems clueless. Can you imagine Lyndon Johnson allowing his Senate Democrats to defy him on overwhelmingly important bills without suffering the consequences? It’s called arm-twisting, vote-trading, fear-instilling leadership; it’s not used gratuitously, but in certain cases it must be used. It’s how Congress works. Pelosi is simply failing at leadership of a factionated party.
You guys seem to me to be underestimating the leverage the bad guys maintain.
Consider Lieberman. Without him, you don’t “control” the Senate. Therefore, he gets to name his price and you pay it or revert to the minority.
Consider Pelosi. Without the votes of the blue dogs, she isn’t the Speaker. It is, indeed, a “factionated” party but the “majority” of the Democratic members are not sufficiently numerous to be able to twist arms the way you imply they should be able to. I think there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on in the progressive ranks.
Alas, my reaction includes the same thought Jack just noted. Precarious majorities hamstring leaders, inevitably… well in the legislative branch at least… (Would that such had hamstrung Bush but it’s apples and oranges…)
The only hope, methinks, is for those who would be persuaded by Lieberman and any Brian Bairds (is he, like, the one example of Finer’s “few if any change their minds” ??) to be forced to read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
This is the kind of ‘voice’ I think it will take to get even some blue dogs to wake up (if only they would know their constituents are reading it too) — and maybe make Brian Baird backtrack.
well, great minds think alike: see new post by Montfort for discussion of article I just linked…
Without the votes of the Blue Dogs, Pelosi may indeed not be speaker, but she doesn’t get their votes when it matters anyway, which is how the House has repeatedly caved to Bush during her short tenure. Democratic programs either don’t pass or are vetoed. As a speaker, she’s remarkably ineffective.
In current circumstances, a Democratic speaker who is effective would be essentially indistinguishable from a moderate Republican. If 41 of the party’s 231 House members vote almost in lockstep with Republicans, what’s left for a speaker to stand on but principle?
Pelosi’s situtation is similar to that of Sam Rayburn’s during his speakership. Liberal on some things – the New Deal and trade – but decidedly not on others – race and civil rights – Rayburn managed to finesse his way to effectiveness. This passage from Rayburn’s obit in the New York Times is instructive:
Maybe that’s right in general terms, but in specifics that method is often lacking. As the obit points out, under Kennedy liberals pressured Rayburn to accommodate their projects. This involved enlarging the Rules Committee. It took heavy measures of discipline to make this happen, and though that wasn’t Rayburn’s style, he did it, and it worked. Even though Kennedy’s programs weren’t always passed, Democratic discipline ensured some success.
And Rayburn didn’t have a war to contend with. It is this issue, the moral importance of which cannot be overstated, that Pelosi is failing most egregiously on, because she’s doing what Rayburn did for most of his career: “To get along you’ve got to go along.” That might work for the vast majority of the House’s work, but not for this war. It’s too vital for Pelosi to be playing it safe. I think she has enough loyal Democratic votes to ensure her speakership – would the Blue Dogs vote to have a Republican speaker? Oh, the infamy! If she’s not brave enough to test her powers, she doesn’t deserve to have them.
The “we need Lieberman” bit simply doesn’t sell here in various cases. The Webb bill got over 50 votes, but was blocked by a minority.
The stance appears to be that, let’s say on FISA, there are not 8-10 Dems available to block legislation until the matter is fully vetted and has a few more safeguards.
The idea that Webb and Feinstein, to name two, would — if the pressure is there — bolt to the Republicans in such cases is to me absurd. They just are let off too easily, sorry.
Then, there is the occupation itself. Two things. First, I share Weldon’s main point that it is silly for the leadership to sponsor counterproductive legislation … that will be
Second, to the degree the leadership doesn’t have the votes, again, in the last funding bill, they made it too easy for the President. And, the Blue Dogs. Again, simply put, the will is not there. For instance, even a failed move to censor say Gonzo that has 100 co-sponsors would be powerful. Don’t happen.
There are different degrees of action here. It is not all or nothing.
Well, Joe is right as is Monty that some things haven’t been tried a la Rayburn (although I’m not sure the circumstances are sufficiently similar.) However, it is totally clear that without Lieberman there is no control of the Senate. It is also clear that anything that has significant opposition in the Senate needs 60 affirmative votes. It is also clear that the blue dogs plus a unified Republican vote hold a commanding majority in the House.
Contrary to Joe’s implication, it is not my stance that nothing can be done. It is my stance that, given the vote alignments in both houses, attempting to get progressive action is an uphill climb and, while one can regret failure to accomplish such action, one shouldn’t be surprised.
I think the appropriate tactic to deal with all of this is to elect more progressives. For that reason, I won’t finance the DNC or the DLC and prefer to target my support to individual races. In Illinois terms, I don’t see anything to be gained by assisting Melissa Bean. Some say the slight advantage of having the leadership is worth supporting blue dogs. Not me. Target congressional races and regain the presidency. Anything short of that is just more of the same.
Jack, I agree with your strategy of supporting candidates. It’s just that the carnage of this war makes it imperative that Pelosi begin acting now, not wait for the next election.
I’d be the last to be surprised by any failure of effort to end this war, but I want to see the effort made anyway, and strongly. I don’t want Pelosi surrendering just because she sees she can’t win anyway. She’s humiliating herself, proving herself a weak leader, and she’s betraying the hopes of the people who voted Democratic in 2006.
Additionally, if the Blue Dogs keep it up, they may find their constituents – conservative and liberal alike – did indeed vote Democratic to end the war, and that they have betrayed those voters, who I hope will put an end to their political careers.
Yeah, I know – what are the chances? But nothing ventured, nothing gained, Nancy.
Jack, I’m not saying that Pelosi or Reid can force Democrats to vote the way they want; just that they can make it considerably more unpleasant not to, and at the same time make electing progressives in the future easier by highlighting the behavior of those Democrats who consistently vote Republican.
“that is not going to vote against the administration. There isn’t much the leadership can do to change that, assuming that it wants to”
“isn’t much” kinda sends a rather negative message … how much better is this from “nothing” really … putting aside pushing for better candidates in 2008 and such?
None of us think it is not an “uphill” climb to change the current Democratic leadership strategy or shocked at the final votes. We do think something more can be done and the fight can be better played … now in the current Congress. The other stuff is part of it too, sure.
We are aware of the de facto Republican majority, except to the degree that “Republican” implies all the people are Lieberman clones that cannot be influenced. Some of the FISA votes joined with the Webb amendment. etc.
Excitement at the polls will be encouraged by a better showing in Congress. Under the current system, not many seats are really likely to change hands in any given election. Other means must be used as well to pressure conservative Dems on core issues, esp. such fundamental ones that many believe are extraordinary in scope.
Well, we can always bribe them as was done in the vote to set time limits for withdrawal. I recall a lot of progressive tut-tutting about that.
Depending upon how one defines it, bribery is perhaps the flip side to punishment, but I don’t think it’s the ideal approach. I guess I’d have to ask at this point in the discussion, what do you think the role of the leadership should be? If it’s pointless to manage votes in a way that embarrasses occupation fans rather than providing them with cover — and in the process making your goal of electing more progressive candidates more difficult — and if whatever strong-arm measures could be employed are off limits, what is it that Pelosi, Reid and other leaders are doing that defines them as leaders?
Minor sidepoint comparison but while listening to NPR this morning driving, an extended story/interview/panel convened about — of all things — Merv Griffin, who apparently was just controversially “outed” by Hollywood Reporter, posthumously. The story had been posted, then pulled, then reposted, as they had gotten, in this past week, various reactions of horror at the dubious integrity of ‘outing’ a deceased especially so soon after. The “outer” — H.R. staff reporter — claimed that he didn’t see himself as ‘outing’ because he’d worked for Griffin in the mid-80′s and claimed that even then everyone “knew” that Griffin was gay, so he rationalized that it was in good cause to use this as a latest example of how retarded Hollywood is that even in 2007 people’s gayness is still routinely kept an “open secret” – everybody knows (L. Cohen) but nobody ‘knows’.
Well, okay: They had a “panel” about this controversy, which included Hollywood insiders and this one woman in the biz (alas, i was in and out of the car and missed such things as who was who) and seemed quite authoritative about this, claimed that it’s a myth that Hollywood is “open” and progressive about gayness, that she thinks the country, the public, is actually way ahead of Hollywood on being okay about, casually accepting about, sexual orientation. And the reason is because Hollywood is still dictated to by the “bottom line” guys — the producers and agents and all who complicitously keep the “open secret” status alive because they think there might be backlash, that there might be a conservative/religious boycott, and that is what keeps the dynamic of “open secret” still alive even now, making gays in Hollywood essentially living a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach in still apparently many cases.
Well, I found myself as I listened thinking of the parallel: What Pelosi, Reid et al. are doing is the equivalent in a way, methinks, of what these ‘bottom-liners’ in Hollywood are doing: essentially propelled by fear (the very fear endengered by the right-wing, be it Bush or his cohort or Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and their ilk) of backlash, ‘boycott’ or a variant on the above. The parallel isn’t exact, but that’s my two cents’ worth to this discussion here for now, that one can see the timidity and short-sheeting, punch-pulling of their own espoused ideals (at least with Pelosi, before she was Speaker, she was outspoken – you knew exactly where she stood and what her ideals were; Reid maybe not so much) as being very similar in cause and effect to that of Hollywood’s bottom-liners.
In respnse to Weldon’s question, as I’ve indicated before, I don’t think there is much that either can do to “lead” because both are, in effect, trying to lead a minority in the face of a significant majority. To “bottom line” it, as Zinya put it, it is highly unlikely that a majority can be lead to vote contrary to its wishes. Maybe tricked, bribed or punished into it but, more likely, particularly with trickery and punishment, the likely result would be a change of leadership resulting in even more objectionable action.
In effect, Weldon, you’re asking me how to play a losing hand well. Perhaps I’m not a talented player. Perhaps I’ve got bad cards. Bluffs only work now and then, if at all.
Again, though, Jack, the point is not whether the minority of Democrats voting with Republicans can be coerced into voting with the majority, but whether they’ll pay a price for their votes. I don’t know whether Reid’s position is insecure, but Pelosi’s isn’t; she was elected by acclamation, and the House Democrats who consistently take Republican positions amount to maybe 20% of the entire caucus. When you suggest that Pelosi is playing a weak hand badly, well, yeah: that’s what I’m saying too, although I don’t think her hand is as weak as you do.
The obvious way to dilute the threat posed by conservative Democrats is to increase the ratio of progressives to conservatives, but that requires giving people some reason to either vote out Republican reps or to replace conservative Democrats with more progressive ones. Pelosi’s habit of making life easier for wayward Dems won’t help accomplish those things.
Those battles will be fought in each district. What Pelosi is doing isn’t making it easier for particular candidates in particular districts whose voters have an agenda. That’s really the issue: whether or not the voters have an agenda. Last time around, when a bunch of blue dogs got elected or reelected, it is unlikely that their constituencies were electing/reelecting them to stop the war, for example. If they were, then they probably will be out of there this time around, right? I didn’t think so.
As to what Reid/Pelosi can/should do going forward, I’m waving the white flag. Have at them to your heart’s desire.
The battles will be fought in each district, but they’ll be fought with other people’s money, including money from leadership PACs and so on. What Pelosi does, and how she frames the actions of those incumbents, will have an impact on whether they’re challenged in the primaries, how effectively they’re challenged if they are, etc. All politics is local, but local isn’t what it used to be. Anyway, thanks for going one step beyond what was worth it for you.
FWIW: This is a Q&A of Blue Dog Heath Shuler and eight-term Republican incumbent Charles Taylor a few weeks before the 2006 election, when Shuler took Taylor’s seat. See if you can find much difference between the two. In fact, Taylor speaks much more forcefully against government spying on American citizens. Both want to continue the war in Iraq.
This is a survey of the 11th District on November 1, 2006. Republicans outnumber Democrats only 41% to 39%, with 20% declaring “other.” It’s a generally closely fought district despite the common wisdom that western North Carolina is home to far-right types.
Notice the overwhelming dissatisfaction with Bush and the war, with the direction of the country, and with Bush in general.
This is Shuler’s voting record. He voted for warrantless wiretapping. He voted with Republicans, twice, to kill a bill to withdraw American troops from Iraq in nine months. I don’t think the voters who elected him – the same voters who don’t like Bush, the war or the way the country is headed – are going to notice much difference between Shuler and Taylor.
Pelosi can make him regret those Republican votes of his, and she can let the voters in the 11th District know what those votes meant – that they helped continue Bush’s policies that they don’t like, and helped keep the country going in the direction they don’t like, a direction and policies they voted Shuler into office to change.
[...] of US troops. I had planned to write something about Allawi and the op-ed, which I mentioned in a mundanely prescient piece about the lack of resolve on Iraq among Congressional Democrats and the Democratic presidential [...]