Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Washington Tryst? Questions from the Iraq Vigil
The great question on the minds of the people gathered Tuesday night outside the Capitol, and, I suspect, at the more than 150 similar anti-war vigils nationwide was, "Are the Democrats for real?"
Tonight, Reid, Pelosi, and Carl Levin, for at least one glorious instant, became the "Fighting Dems."
"I want everyone here tonight -- every American from coast to coast -- to know that we won't stop fighting until we end this war," Reid said."That is what this night is all about."
Statements like that should give us reason to celebrate how far the peace movement has come. Reid, Pelosi, and others gave full throated support to the goal of ending the Iraq war and did it not to Katie Couric but to a passionate crowd of progressive activists -- and brought upwards of 40 Democrats, including most of the top leadership, with them. I will never forget the huge pack of senators and congressmen descending from their air-conditioned Capitol aerie at 9 pm in a 90 degree night to be with a crowd of progressive activists.
They are finally coming to us.
But is it for real? Is this but a sweaty, noisy, passionate tryst? Will the fight and the love last a midsummer's night or endure till the war is finally over?
"I'm hoping this won't be a one night stand," said one rally attendee, Mary Kelly of Silver Spring. "The Democrats need to do this again and again and again."
Will the Democrats slink from the arms of the movement into the arms of the capitulationists -- leaving us once more nauseous with regret and foreboding? Will some serpentine consultant slither up to his boss, congratulate him on the late-night eloquent paeans to the progressives, advise capping it off with a post on DailyKos, and then whisper behind a covered hand, "We've done what we need for the base; we'll get killed in the media if we keep up this fight too long -- it will look 'really bad' if they start saying we're cutting off funding for the troops."
The suspicion of lurking consultant lizards lent last night's sticky summer air the palpable tension that sometimes seizes the Washington night before a thunderstorm. It began calmly with just the few hecklers one would expect in a committed anti-war crowd finally face-to-face with Democratic leaders they feel have jilted them with betrayals and unfulfilled promises.
But the hecklers, though few in number, grew in size and intensity as the night went on and almost all of the 40-odd senators and representatives took their turn at the microphone (typically, Democrats seemed not to have the discipline to appoint just a few speakers to represent them).
"You do your duty -- troops home now! "It's a farce!" "It's your war too," they shouted, growing so disruptive at one point that some usually silver-tongued senators were briefly dumbstruck when confronted with the hecklers' rage.
From one perspective, the hecklers were obnoxious, out of place, and off message: the ex-lover wrecking the wedding. Everyone felt awkward and embarrassed in their presence. For all their sincere anger about the war, last night was not really the time or place. Last night was the time to rejoice in the Democrats' new combative spirit -- however fleeting. They're like hesitant virgins pawing their way through their first liaison: they need encouragement.
But though the hecklers were impolitic and in some ways deeply wrong, all the absolutist anti-war voices at that vigil, on the web and in the country are vital: as much as they make everyone stare at their shoes, things would be far worse if they didn't exist.
The worst possible thing would have been for Democrats to have left the rally without tasting a bit of the abuse in store if they again render abject surrender to the Republicans. That doesn't mean they have to adopt the absolutist positions of the hecklers or their online counterparts, but it does mean they need to continue to force Bush and the Republicans to publicly and shamefully obstruct the Democrats' reasonable attempts to bring a responsible peace to Iraq.
Because sometimes the price of love is peace.
Glenn Hurowitz is the president of www.DemocraticCourage.com, an organization dedicated to promoting progressive values in the Democratic Party.
© 2007 Huffington Post
12 Comments so far
Show AllThe hecklers were the stars, calling the Dems two-faced. Vern and others are quite right that the RAGE of the millions of citizens needs to be poured down upon all of DC.
"From one perspective, the hecklers were obnoxious, out of place, and off message: the ex-lover wrecking the wedding. Everyone felt awkward and embarrassed in their presence. For all their sincere anger about the war, last night was not really the time or place. Last night was the time to rejoice in the Democrats' new combative spirit — however fleeting. They're like hesitant virgins pawing their way through their first liaison: they need encouragement."
I think I am going to be sick.
They should know our rage.
They should feel our rage.
They should fear us and they should know we are dead serious and not goung to stand for their lies and false promises, for their posturing for their cowardice and their complicity. It is no time to play nice and prostate ourselves for the bone thrown to keep the pack quiet.
Thank you hecklers for your courage to knock them off their priviliged pedestals--and the author makes me sick with her proper adherence to the civility of suppressed rage.
Glenn's use of imagery and metaphor in the above article sound more like a courtship song to a reluctant lover. Strange choice of words, there...
bongofury is right we need to call them on every piece of corp. shit they try to feed us. The are owned by the same corp.masters as the rethugs.
Conservatives suck. Why do they lead us? Why not lead ourselves? Let the people decide!:
http://www.nationalinitiative.us/
If they REALLY wanted to end the war ( and piss off their Military Industrial Corporate and Big Oil bankrollers) it is simple:
1) Do not put forward another bill to further fund the war.
2) Impeach King George the Dim, and Cheney the Impaler (and Gonzalez to boot)
IS THAT SO HARD?
Glenn, you are a hopeless dreamer! If you realy think that the Coporate Democrats are going to show some guts, all of a sudden and bite the hand that feeds (and enriches) them you are as faith based as the Idiot-in-Chief. The hecklers are the ones we need to thank not belittle. So go F*ck yourself and stop trying to bull shit me.
"For all their sincere anger about the war, last night was not really the time or place."
-------------------------------------------------
Good luck with the baby steps. But I'm not impressed with your hand-wringing about those misguided "hecklers". For moderates who view politics as purely and exclusively about strategy, there never IS "really the time or place".
I gather that you would have preferred only sycophants to cheer on the Democrats as their eyelids flutter and they seem to finally awake from their coma. This was not a vigil of parents attending their child's first peewee football game, after all.
When Pelosi was first elected, some commenters on progressive blogs reported that they actually wept with joy-- because a woman had been elected Speaker, admittedly, not because they believed that she was particularly anti-war. Enraptured supporters assured us skeptics that Pelosi's infamous statements about impeachment being off the table (and a "waste of time"), and Reid's quick assurance that the President would get his war funded were shrewd "rope-a-dope" positions to allow the fragile Democratic majority to gel and quietly prepare for the long-overdue comeuppance of our criminal Executive Branch.
The honeymoon, such as it was, didn't last the "hundred days". It became painfully clear that the Democrats were much more interested in preserving a status quo to repeat their electoral success in 2008 than in actually opposing the heinous maladministration.
So I'm sorry you and the "dumbstruck" Dems were put off by the impolite and impolitic "hecklers" who didn't have enough sense to stay home and keep their powder dry.
This article is nauseating apologetics. It desperately seeks to promote illusions in the sellouts of the Dem Party, while smearing serious protestors as "impolitic, absolutist, obnoxious, off-message," & embarrassing to everyone at the gathering. When the author writes that even though the protestors were obnoxious, "things would be far worse if they didn't exist", he's tossing us a cheap bone, after insulting us & dubbing treasonous invertebrates like Reid & Pelosi "The Fighting Dems."
To put it mildly, it's too late to take questions like "But is it for real?" seriously. Of course it's not for real. The Democrats have amply demonstrated that they're organically incapable of taking a principled stand against the war. Six weeks ago, they gave Bush $100 billion to continue the war, with no strings attached. Anyone who believes they're going to change their stripes now is in denial.
Also, for anyone reading closely, the last sentence barely even makes sense. It says the Democrats "need ... to force Bush and the Republicans to publicly and shamefully obstruct the Democrats' reasonable attempts to bring a responsible peace to Iraq." There are about 5 things wrong with that sentence.
Among them, the Democrats are NOT trying to bring peace to Iraq. They're merely trying to rejigger the strategy a bit. They want to redefine the mission, mostly by describing it with different language. They want to place troops in different places -- but are not even contemplating ending the US attempt to control the region & its oil by military force. Their plan will leave tens of thousands of troops & an unspecified number of mercenaries in Iraq, claiming that the troops' job is now "limited" to fighting Al Qaeda, training Iraqi troops, and securing US interests. (In other words, pretty much what they're doing now.) This is basically declaring "We have a plan to end the war," and presenting a plan to continue the war.
Another idiotic aspect of that sentence is its claim that the Dems "need" to force the Republicans to obstruct the Dems' (alleged) attempts to bring peace. Why is that objective in any way useful? Is that all that can be expected from the "opposition party?"
Half the US fleet is in the Persian Gulf right now. How about instead of using it to attack Iran, we use it as troop carriers? We could be out in weeks.
Bring 'em home !!!!!!
Can anyone give me a rational reason why we need the damned filibuster?
The RepubliKKKans threatened to eliminate the procedure (the "Nuclear Option") in order to corrupt the Supreme Court. The Dem's permitted the Court to be corrupted in order to protect the filibuster–only to see it being used to obstruct meaningful change when they won the Congress.
WHY?? What has it ever protected the nation from that is worth its being continued?
If the Dem's are serious about stopping this criminal war and the criminals who are running it, ELIMINATE THE FILIBUSTER. This would do more towards meaningful change than anything else they could do until a Dem gets elected President (and maybe not even then if a korporatist like Klintstone or Obama gets elected). Plus, the brouhaha surrounding such a move would have the benefit of sending the message to the electorate that the Dem's are finally serious, and will do whatever is needed to stop the killing.
So WHY NOT??? NUKE the damned filibuster and be done with it. Democrats should start acting as if they believe in democracy, and the sooner the better.
OR just mirror the miserepublicans with senatorial filibuster and "secret" holds of further supplemental(s) for continuing the Bush wars. STOP THEM NOW! Hey, WTF (Where's The Filibuster)?