Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) traveled to New York on Monday and huddled with leaders of the anti-Iraq-war movement, his latest effort to reassure this increasingly restive group that Democrats are doing everything they can to end the war.
Reid’s session, which was not publicly disclosed, comes as he and other congressional leaders are trying to maneuver between two conflicting political goals: enlisting enough support from Republican lawmakers to force the Bush administration to change its strategy, without compromising so much that anti-war activists will complain of a sell-out.
In the Monday session, according to several people who were either present or briefed by attendees, Reid tried to explain his limitations and pleaded with anti-war leaders to keep their energies focused on Republicans, not Democrats.
The Reid mission reflected the paradox bedeviling the anti-war movement. It is powerful enough to command constant care and feeding by the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates and congressional leaders. But so far it has proven largely impotent in forcing policy changes.
What’s more, five years after the congressional vote authorizing Bush’s march to war, opponents still have had only mixed success in mobilizing a mass protest movement.
Impatience rising, some activists are urging that Democrats who are not aggressive enough in confronting Bush on Iraq themselves be challenged with primary opponents or third-party candidacies in 2008.
“People are feeling like we invested all this time and money in changing the political equation and where has it led us?” said former congressman Tom Andrews, leader of Win Without War, a member of the anti-war coalition Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI).
Polls show majorities agree with anti-war leaders that the war was a mistake and that troops should come home soon.
But unlike during the Vietnam era, when the size and strength of street protests gradually grew over time, the Iraq war initially produced massive demonstrations that have since petered out. On Saturday, only about 20,000 gathered for what was billed a major peace march.
Despite millions spent and a season of action dubbed “Iraq Summer,” September arrived without the dam breaking Bush’s Republican support for a continued indefinite presence in Iraq.
That’s not how it was supposed to go.
Last April, an energized Tom Matzzie, head of AAEI, visited the offices of Politico to lay out the summer strategy - and the 2008 elections were central to his thinking.
Democrats and the anti-war movement had the GOP “by the balls,” Matzzie argued then, because the party’s conservative base still heavily supported the war, while the rest of the country opposed it.
Republicans would therefore be forced to choose between the president and their base, and the general electorate. If the GOP prevented anti-war legislation from passing this term, he said, a colorful fate awaited it.
“We’re going to smash their heads against their base and flush them down the toilet,” Matzzie said in April. Five months later, the GOP is still unified behind the war.
In interviews in recent days, anti-war leaders laid out the strategy going forward and defended their tactics while the GOP piled on criticism. Republicans contend, in fact, that the war is not front and center with constituents.
One Republican leadership aide, who asked not to be identified, reported that returning members of Congress heard over the summer recess that “illegal immigration, not Iraq” was the top issue of public concern.
But leaders of the anti-war movement aren’t buying it. “Pure spin. Ask Jim Walsh,” Matzzie responded, referring to the House Republican from New York who recently switched his position on the war after being targeted by AAEI.
Matzzie’s rebuttal is typical of a defense that movement leaders make against charges of ineffectiveness. Namely, they deny it by pointing to skeptical public comments made by a growing list of Republican senators and House members under pressure on the war.
Yet lawmakers are only defecting in trickles - which leads to the second defense from anti-war Democrats: Bush’s plugging the dam now will only make the 2008 electoral flood worse.
“Are Republicans really crazy enough to dispute that Iraq is the top issue in the country?” asked Reid spokesman Jim Manley. “If so, that is downright delusional, trending towards fantasyland. If they want to take solace from the fact that they are united as they head off the cliff into certain political oblivion, that is their choice.”
Eli Pariser, the head of MoveOn.org, believes that Matzzie’s spring promise still looks accurate. “I think there’ll be dramatic political consequences for Republicans who continue to back unending war in Iraq. I think President Bush put them in a bind,” he said. “Either Republicans will break with the president or they’ll get fired at the ballot box.”
Increasing the Democratic majority, however, has not been the movement’s first goal, he claimed. “I’d much rather have more Republicans in the Senate and an end to the war than less of them in 2009 and still be [in Iraq],” he said.
The third defense is that the movement is doing all it can - but Bush is simply immovable. Pariser said his group was influential in helping Democrats take control of Congress and in getting a “majority of both congressional bodies on record supporting a timetable for exit,” yet the president responded by expanding the war.
“For any other president, that would have been enough to signal that the public is against the war,” he said. Americans appear similarly skeptical about the president: 77 percent said in a CBS/New York Times poll that Bush would continue his own strategy regardless of whatever Army Gen. David Petraeus recommended, and 66 percent said the same in an ABC/Washington Post poll.
The same polls find that large majorities support a timeline for withdrawal - and a CBS News poll taken after Petraeus’ testimony found the mood largely unchanged.
That dynamic makes Matzzie’s threat a serious one for candidates on the other side of public opinion.
An August survey done for MoveOn by the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research firm conducted in seven states with vulnerable GOP senators - New Mexico, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Maine, Virginia, Minnesota and North Carolina - found that voters in those states were inclined, by a 47 percent to 37 percent margin, not to reelect the Republican incumbent, while naming Iraq as the biggest issue.
Greenberg’s group also checked in on House seats for Democracy Corps, polling in 35 Republican House districts and 35 Democratic districts where the incumbent was deemed vulnerable.
He found similar results: Democrats were ahead 52 percent to 41 percent across the board and leading in districts they had just picked up by 55 percent to 37 percent. Marginal Republicans were behind 44 percent to 49 percent.
“The Democrats had very large leads, including in the seats they newly picked up in 2006. The Republicans in the 35 seats we looked at were behind - and this was a named ballot, not a generic ballot,” Greenberg said. “Republicans holding those seats are gravely at risk.”
Yet for frustrated activists, 2009 is far too long to wait. “First things first: Let’s end this war,” said Andrews, of Win Without War.
Andrews, anti-war activist Tom Hayden, Code Pink’s Dana Balicki, and Leslie Cagan, director of United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of anti-war groups, said there is open talk of third-party challenges from the left.
MoveOn recently asked its members whether it should challenge pro-war Democrats in primaries. The results of the query have yet to be released, but the fact that the option is under consideration indicates the profound frustration being felt.
Though patience is running out among activists, said several movement leaders, there is befuddlement as to how to proceed. “If any of us knew which tactic it would be that will end the war, I’d tell everyone to get behind it,” said Cagan.
“I’d be foolhardy to say we have the answer to how to end this war. The good news here is that we’re still growing. The bad news is that the war is still going and we’re not strong enough to end it.”
If the anti-war movement does take on Democrats, it claims it will have the troops needed. Beltway media, said Pariser, don’t notice the spread-out strength of the movement. “I think [the media] still doesn’t really understand what it means to have the kind of targeted and nationally oriented anti-war movement,” he said.
“Since January, our members have done upwards of 7,000 events that got local earned media. I think that’s less visible in Washington, but it’s more powerful.”
© The Politico & Politico.com
Only those with any faith left in the Dims are frustrated by thier predictable inactions. They are part of the problem and we need to organize a real opposition. That starts by calling a convention somwehere and including internet access where a basic platform is written and where candidates are chosen from among our movement’s best known leaders. We then run an honesty, accountability and “take back America” campaign. Let’s get real about change!
Easy:
Hold funding
Impeachment
but then, that would be like expecting a Democrat to defend a kid being beaten by the cops.
The Harry Reid arguement that the Democrats can’t end the war because they don’t have the 67 votes to override a Bush veto is pure crap. They can not approve further funding any time they wish with only 51 nay votes. The fact is, the Democrats are baseless cowards and don’t mind watching 50-75 of our soldiers killed each month while they dither on.
People who think the problem is “the Democrats” and the solution is to reject “the Democrats” in favor of…. something else…. fail to understand that the two-party system in this country is little more than a formal structure which results from the fact of winner-take-all elections.
The task is to change “the Democrats” from the ones that currently hold office to new people who will consistently oppose war and support progressive goals. You do this by running progressive candidates in Democratic primaries and winning the most votes. Nobody can prevent you from doing this, and it’s a lot easier than winning the most votes in general elections, because most Democratic voters are more to the left than most Republican voters.
“The Democrats” is an illusion. Nobody, not Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or the DLC or even the DNC has a lock on this thing. Nobody can stop you from organizing as “Progressive Democrats” or “Green Democrats” or just plain “Greens” and running candidates in Democratic primaries, and if you have even half as many votes as you would need to win a general election, winning the Democratic nomination. And if you win office this way, you win power, and you can take over the Party.
“The task is to change “the Democrats” from the ones that currently hold office to new people who will consistently oppose war and support progressive goals. ”
WRONG. The state democratic machine will prevent it. You can’t take them over — they are already owned.
How pathetic are the dem voters too who will nevertheless vote in november 2008 for another war canidate, Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Whatever way you cut it, you’re voting to continue the war, and possibly for more war.
Don’t expect universal health care, middle class tax relief, improvements on the domestic front etc etc. All these great things that would benefit 99% of us aren’t going to happen.
If you are going to vote for Hillary/Obama/Edwards, it’s most likely because you have the wrong expectations. You might as well vote republican, and I personally am going to vote republican. When the next depression occurs, which economists are predicting as 2008/2009 even though both parties are cut from the same loin, it needs to go on record taht it was the conservative/republican economic policies which led to the collapse of the American economy.
But point is for your individual life, for the outcome/strategy in the war, and for the wellbeing of the nation voting for any of the current frontrunner canidates (handpicked by the corperate media, not by you) democrat and republican, won’t make any difference. Once again, you are voting against yourselves and your country. The system is rigged so 1% are always in control, and always benefit greatly, while the 99% rest of us are left squabbling and dejected. It is a catch-22. Whatever way we vote, they win. They pick our canidates for us, not just literally, but figuratively/psychologically as well.
I spoke of expectations before. Get used to us being in Iraq. Iraq=South Korea of the 21st century. And get used to a timid, paranoid, and apathetic/distracted disorganized public. Get used to the police state. These things aren’t going anywhere.
So, what’s new?
Dems = Bush enablers
Bush = front man
Military industrial complex, oil companies, Israel = real players (and constituents of both the Reps and the Dems)
American public = clueless
our troops = perpetrators of war (crimes)
US media = post Goebbel propaganda organ
In this article, the writer seems confused:
“Reid tried to explain his limitations and pleaded with anti-war leaders to keep their energies focused on Republicans, not Democrats.”
Pray tell, how can anti-war leaders not focus on the Democrats when they keep voting with the Republicans? You are known by the company you keep!
AND:
“The Reid mission reflected the paradox bedeviling the anti-war movement. It is powerful enough to command constant care and feeding by the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates and congressional leaders. But so far it has proven largely impotent in forcing policy changes.”
It seems to me, Dear Writer, that it is the Democratic Majority in Congress who insists on remaining the minority in Congress and hence is the impotent one!
Please, stop trying to quell the rising tide of dissent in this country, that like a Tsunami, it is gathering strength. It would behoove the Demos to stop complaining and seek “higher ground.”
LOL!
“The task is to change “the Democrats” from the ones that currently hold office to new people who will consistently oppose war and support progressive goals. You do this by running progressive candidates in Democratic primaries and winning the most votes. Nobody can prevent you from doing this, and it’s a lot easier than winning the most votes in general elections, because most Democratic voters are more to the left than most Republican voters….”
Like Howard Dean for example?
Democrats are the greatest obstacle to progress. They are defenders of the status quo and they benefit from maintaining the present order.
All this talk about the Dems not having the necessary majority is bullshit (and the fact that this argument is being bought by so many “progressive” is another example of how clueless and gullible the American public is).
A real leader and a real opposition party would create the majority for a worthy cause (and I do not see any cause that could be worthier than restoring our constitution, our moral standing, our future and present security, etc.) rather than hide behind opportunisms.
More than ever: Dems = Bush enabler, war enabler and representative of the “military industrial complex and the Israeli lobby”
whunt330 September 19th, 2007 12:31 pm,
Basically you are right, but I think you got one thing wrong, when you say: ” the Democrats are baseless cowards…”
They are neither cowards, nor fools. Remember who their constituents are, and who finance them. NOt you and me, but the military industrial complex, the bog oil companies and the Israeli lobby.
The Dems are doing exactly what their constituents are asking them to do….
Hope you will reconsider yourthoughts.
Nader2000 September 19th, 2007 12:35 pm
” You do this by running progressive candidates in Democratic primaries and winning the most votes.”
============
MN had recently elected the “progressive” Democrat Amy Klobuchar. Guess what, she recently voted for the FISA law. So much for your strategy of electing “progressive Dems” within the confines of the two-party duopoly, a sham that most Americans still think is a democracy.
I dont get it,I just dont.
TO THE DEMS
I have been meaning to write something like this for awhile because of your feckless responses and kowtowing to a president who is out to destroy this country. Why? Because you are cynical and political to an extreme. It is either that or you want to have all the stuff that is on the books now plus a war that you think will help you and without the blame. This is neither humanistic or morally defendable. Petraeus got what he deserves and cutting off funds for this war is the way to go because when it comes to priorities for this occupation it is contractors first and troops last. You can see this from any facts that you look at. So who cares for the troops? Some of you have been doing a lot of talking but nobody has thrown a rock at this glass house of an administration. Leave it to the people thru MoveOn.Org to do the heavy lifting for what you are supposed to be doing. You will not get my vote because you are no better than the repubs. Is there any difference in dictators, if one is a dem. or a repub? The way that you are acting you just want the whole pie for yourselves and forget the people again. I’m 71 and cant help but wonder what of the younger people? Because of your feckless nature it is a bleak future for them. Tony
Actions speak louder than words. The Democratic Party agenda is plain to see, and implicit in this article: keep the war going, and Bush in office, well into 2008 so they’ll have a free ride into power. As a bonus, they inherit all that Fox News/Halliburton money from the Repubs, and the illicit powers W has built up - with their connivance.
They are professionals: they know what their powers are and what they could do to stop the war. They choose not to, and nobody’s buying the excuse that they’re “afraid” of something, except a few delusional Dims. Who would vote for cowards like that?
Jade Prole and everybody else who’s calling for a “new party:” There is one. It’s the Green Party (GPUS.org - look us up). And yes, we screwed up in 2004 (and yes, I supported that blunder at the time). That isn’t going to happen again. But it does mean we need your help. We need a lot more active members and we need to get on more ballots. A Presidential campaign in a year when the “major” parties are deeply, and deservedly, unpopular is the way to do that, and the way to tell the Democratic Party what we really think of it.
The Green Party in Oregon has already decided to run peace candidates in every Congressional district, and probably for the Senate, as well. It is not just speculation that there will be 3rd party candidacies: they’re getting underway. I just wish that poll the article mentions had been done in Oregon: I suspect Gordon Smith’s chances are very poor indeed.
The Dims forgot something: a free ride for them is a free ride for us, too; and their non-performance is causing a groundswell of disgust. So join the party: it’s going to be an exciting election year.
And yes, nothing electoral will end the war soon, except possibly a credible threat to the Dems’ electoral chances. That will take near-revolution in the streets, or in the military, just as during Vietnam. Good luck; we’ll need it.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here as to just how pissed off the Progressive base is with the Democratic Party.
We have no illusions about the Republicans. They are what they are. The Dems however, talk left and vote right.
Progressives will fight those who oppose us and fight harder those who betray us.
The republican strategy as evolved since Barry Goldwater offered a “choice, not an echo” has been to throw red meat to their base and win the middle with wedge issues. The democrats strategy is to do everything they can to alienate their base and try to win by reaching out to soccer moms, nascar dads and evangelicals.Who has been more successful?
I have written this before: There is only so much talent, organizational skill, media savvy and too little money on the left. Do we want to expend it trying to take over a party that has no intention of being taken over? I say use it to build a real left alternative, and, why not a real right alternative? There have got to be a lot of pissed off conservatives out there too. A 3rd Party, a 4th party and maybe a 5th and 6th. More choice, not Hillary and Rudy, God help us.
Cindy Sheehan for Congress!
There should be a concentrated effort to mobilze the anti-war movement and true progressives that are still in the mindset of voting Democrat, to vote third party in 2008. We have taken such a dramatic leap backwards over the last decade that the only way things will turn around is to get both parties out of the White House.
As long as enough of us enable the Dems (by voting for them), they’re going to enable the Republicans. Find a good third party and stick to it!
I’d really like to hear the reasoning and logic of the Hillary Obama or Edwards voters in 2008. What is justification, be it personal, national, or international well being in voting for any of these three people?
I’m serious. Someone explain to me their justification for voting for them?
I believe it’s because they think they have no other choice, but the reality is they really have NO CHOICE to begin with.
Jaded Prole writes:
“WRONG. The state democratic machine will prevent it. You can’t take them over — they are already owned.”
This is the same baseless claim made over and over by people wanting to play pretend politics. What they never explain is HOW the “democratic machine” can prevent you from winning Democratic primaries if in fact you have the ability to organize voters.
Sure, there are a lot of tricks they can play. But the bottom line is, they can’t keep you off the primary ballots and let other people on, if in fact you have the ability to organize voters. And they can’t prevent you from winning the nominations, if in fact you have the ability to organize voters. And then you can win office, if in fact you have the ability to organize voters.
And if you don’t have the ability to organize voters, who are you kidding with your Green Party or whatever?
citizen1 writes:
“MN had recently elected the “progressive” Democrat Amy Klobuchar. Guess what, she recently voted for the FISA law.”
So, I guess she wasn’t progressive enough. Find somebody else who is, and run her in a primary.
Vern writes:
“Howard Dean for example?”
Dean didn’t win. Did Nader?
Why is there not one single congressman, senator, governor or big-city mayor from the Green Party?
Because it’s winner-take-all, stupid.
Ryan Grim says of the anti-war movement: “It is powerful enough to command constant care and feeding by the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates and congressional leaders.”
“Care and feeding”? Tell that to Code Pink of California Bay Area that recently held a hunger strike in front of Nancy Pelosi’s house just asking for a meeting with her on the war - they still haven’t seen her.
Records: Senators who OK’d war didn’t read key report, That includes Hillary Clinton. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html
Democrats are so willing to go along with Bush and the rest of the Republicans that they don’t even bother to read reports before voting on the issue. Looks like there will be a repeat when it comes to Iran.
There is no chance of them winning because the system is rigged. Recall the scorn heaped on Dean and for what? I never knew but the networks played “the Dean scream” over and over and over–with these instructions:
See Dean. Dean is crazy. Dean is a loon.
Dean interacting with a rally of his followers makes him a crazed loon?
But people repeated it–and it was echoed everywhere and everyone understood the consensus. And so it goes with anyone who threatens that power structure. They are blamed (Nader), attacked (Sheehan)and defines as crazed loons. The latest being this college kid who I guess didn’t show the proper deference to a menmber of the ruling elite.
The point is even when we have a populist figure emerge that in any way threatens proper protocol or the status quo, social instructions are broadcasted to isolate, shame, define that figure as a crazed loon. And everybody follows right off that cliff.
“define that figure as a crazed loon.”
Or they put a bullet in his/her head.
Ironically, they blame the murder on a crazed loon.
Stop referring to these lice as ‘ruling elite’; they are anything but. You might refer to them as thieves, conmen, usurpers and be much closer to the truth. Calling them “elite” anything is simply a misnomer.
I suspect one of two things will happen. When the US bombs Iran, the Bush Administration will make absolute certain whomever the next person occupying the White House is (they already have selected someone and cut a deal with the Democrats), that person will go along with the bombing and ensure that nothing changes about the illegal eavesdropping(sorry, I meant wiretaps)on this country and illegal occupation of Iraq. Or Bush will invoke martial law and nullify the 2008 election. In the “Federalist Papers” James Madison warned us about a two-party system, claiming that it could bifurcate the country. He recommended having more than two parties. True we could take Madison’s advice and vote for a third, fourth, or fifth party candidate, but I fear that we would be in the minority for the reason listed above. In a sense, I think Mastershake is right, things really will have to get much worse before we see appreciable change in this country.
He won’t have to nullify the election because there is no real opposition. Especially after he declares martial law and rounds us up!
You want to placate the “anti-war crowd” Harry?
What will you say when bushcon launches his air raids on Iran in the Spring or summer, after the primaries have decided who the dems will run? And the build up to this was all over the MSM, ass kissers of bushcon that they are, and how the US was JUSTIFIED in launching its attack on Iran, because after all, they just killed 500 of our troops, and it was Iranian weapons that were found that caused the loss.
What then Harry? Will you Hillary, faced with this act, say, NO, attacking Iran was WRONG? she’ll fall in line or she’ll hand the presidency in 11.08 to Rudy.
Who has control?
The commander guy, the guy who says he’s the decider.
Again hilariously (but unintentionally so), Mr “Nader2000″ presumes to lecture the rest of us about how politics works, when actually, he’s the only one here who doesn’t understand it. He writes,
“But the bottom line is, they (ie, the Dem Party machine) can’t keep you off the primary ballots and let other people on, if in fact you have the ability to organize voters. And they can’t prevent you from winning the nominations, if in fact you have the ability to organize voters…”
Mr Nader2000 imagines that American politics is very democratic, & played on a nice level playing field. In his imagination, nothing of real consequence happens behind the scenes; there are no deep institutional connections between the media, powerful corporate interests, lobbyists, the old-boys network inside the Beltway, & what candidates are fielded by the two parties of Wall St & the military-industrial complex. In his imagination, “voters” ultimately decide policy, based simply on their own well-informed opinions — as opposed to being stampeded by the media into doing exactly what elites want them to do.
In the real world, though, the Dem Party machine does indeed often keep people off the ballots. For instance, in Henry Hyde’s old Chicago district in 2006, the pro-war Rahm Emanuel (who oversaw the candidates chosen for 22 Dem congressional campaigns) managed to keep a serious antiwar candidate, Christine Cegelis, off the ballot, while ensuring that Iraq war vet & double-amputee Tammy Duckworth would be the Democratic nominee. (Details at http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh11112006.html). And of course, the Dems conspired with Republicans in 2000 to bar Ralph Nader from participating in the presidential debates. And there are literally tons of examples of how the Dems have conspired to ensure that no 3rd party candidate ever gets a fair chance of meeting ballot requirements (while D and R candidates always automatically qualify).
The Dem Party machinery has decisive control over who gets to represent it, as its candidates. To imagine that a serious antiwar pro-environment pro-democracy activist has any real chance in this kind of competition is to ignore the central realities of the process. This, in fact, is why the Democrats at a national level behave as they do: as sellouts and traitors.
The Whig party dissolved in the 1850s because it couldn’t cope with the territorial issues that arose from the war with Mexico. The Democrats look to be going that same route on Iraq.
P.S. The Whigs weren’t missed, either.
Mr. RichM continues to prevaricate and evade simple questions.
Where did I ever say anything like this:
“nothing of real consequence happens behind the scenes; there are no deep institutional connections between the media, powerful corporate interests, lobbyists, the old-boys network inside the Beltway, & what candidates are fielded by the two parties of Wall St & the military-industrial complex.”
Of course all of this is going on. It works because we let it work. It’s our own laziness, as political “consumers” instead of activists. Unfortunately, some of the energy that is out there gets led into blind alleys by self-interested entrepreneurs of playground politics and senile monomaniacs like The Great Ralph.
No, voters don’t decide policy, but votes decide which candidate wins (subject to some degree of election-day dirty tricks, which we also have to work to eliminate).
The Walsh article does not say that Rahm Emanuel kept Christine Cegelis off the ballot. Sure, that can happen sometimes, but if you aren’t strong enough to beat them when they try that, you aren’t going to be strong enough to beat them on election day.
What Walsh does say is that Duckworth’s campaign “was infused with $3 million and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc.” Well, sure, that’s what they can do. They can do it to you in the primaries and they can do it to you in the generals. If you aren’t strong enough to beat them in the primaries, you aren’t going to be strong enough to beat them in the generals.
Nader was on the ballot across the country, and got 3%. Greens have been on the ballot across the country, and have not won a single major office.
Stop making excuses for your inability to organize an effective movement, and start organizing one. If you want to do elections and win real power, you will go through the Democratic primary process, win there, and gain its huge base of loyal voters, most of whom will enthusiastically follow you to victory in the general elections.
The worst thing the Democrats could do would be to win with any ’serious’, top-tier, 2008, presidential candidate.
It would be the end of the corporate
/centralist dominance of the party, and a rather late salvation for those left with blue collars.
Americans would finally see the degree of difference between the DNC Democrats and the New American Century Republicans.
Can the entire body be criticized just because the knee jerks when the body is accused of being soft, on defense?
Can it be the DNC’s fault that they dismiss such accusations, by cleverly voting for each and every war there after?
To be factual, and or uncharitable, how would the Republicans, the DNC Democrats, or any other ’serious’ presidential candidate, of any party, raise enough money to run for the very expensive presidential campaign without millions from ‘defense industries,’ deep, taxpayer-filled, pockets?
It might just be easier to re-elect a Republican Congress and President and see if a nuclear attack on Iran, would help or hinder global warming.
After all, we’ve got to consider our future.
Nader2000 September 19th, 2007 2:24 pm
“So, I guess she wasn’t progressive enough. Find somebody else who is, and run her in a primary.”
======
Good luck, finding one - within the Democratic Party. Guess why, because the party is bought and paid for by the same crooks who own the other party, namely big business, big oil, military industrial complex and the Israeli lobby. The Dems can not and will not allow within their system any real progressive. That’s not what the “Democratic Party” is about, since quite a while.
When the bombs start falling on Iran, I wonder how Pelosi, Logren, Reid and the other Dems refused to impeach Cheney and Bush will sleep at night?
“On Saturday, only about 20,000 gathered for what was billed a major peace march.”
It was impossible for those of us unable to go to tell from the C-SPAN broadcast how many were there — we saw only a very narrow angle of those in the front of the crowd & couldn’t tell how far it extended.
We should be grateful for the Kerenskys of the world — always ready to represent the people as long as the people don’t show up and make demands & begin to go after the aristocrats who beggar & brutalize them. The polite compromisers always raise the temperature & unwittingly make the populace, even against their own conscious intents, into revolutionaries.
No surprise here. Reid promised publicly right after the last election that there would be no cuts in the funding for the wars. And Reid promised publicly well before the last election there would be no impeachment. And anyone serious has known from the beginning that only these two options would do anything to end these wars.
So, I’m not frustrated that Reid has done and will continue to do exactly what he’s promised. The only thing that frustrates me is that there are so many people who think they are opposed to the war, but who still vote Democrat with the delusion that the Democrats would end the war.
Forget changing the Democrats or running in their primaries. Those are rigged games you are certain to lose. And the only thing that you’ll have done is wasted a lot of time and energy.
I want to see fewer Republicans in the next Senate. I also want to see fewer Democrats in the next Senate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans will try to con you into thinking those goals are mutually exclusive. They are not. Lets just make both these parties as obsolete as the Whig party for the same reason. Both parties no longer even come close to representing the will of the American people. Maybe the Republicans continue as the party of corporate America until we can change the election laws in this country. But there’s no reason we need a Democratic Party that is also just another party of corporate America.
The good news is that Reid is getting so nervous about the next election that he’s flying to New York to try to use his lies and his BS to con the leaders of the anti-war movement to continue the futile cause of supporting Democrats thinking that might change something.
I’d say its bad news if they bought it, but I couldn’t care less what the ‘leaders’ of the anti-war movement think.
BTW, its no surprise that the demonstrations have low turnouts. Most Americans have correctly divined that they are a waste of time and effort. There are no politicians that would listen to what’s said or be influenced by turnout numbers. So why bother.
We know Bush and the Republicans will continue the war. And we know the Democrats will continue the war. So how would a demonstration change anything? What we need is a new Congress that listens to the American people. We get that by not electing ANY Democrats or Republicans in the next election. Once we have that, a demonstration that shows the will of the American people will have an impact. And if people think it will have an impact, they’ll turn out in large numbers.
C-Span is controlled by Congress. C-Span isn’t going to show you something that causes pain to the leaders of Congress. Thus the lack of any shots that would show the extent of the crowd.
The key point about the rules of the Democratic primaries is that they allow the big money people to flood a candidates coffers with $3,000,000.00. The Democrats can choose any rules for their internal contests as long as they stay within the limits of federal law. Thus the Democrats could easily choose Clean Money\Clean Election rules for their primaries.
That they don’t says wonders for what and who the Democrats are. They are the other party of big money, and their rules are designed to make sure they stay that way.
The counter to this is a grass-roots driven campaign. These take longer to organize. Add to that the general point that most Americans only focus on elections closer to election day. That combination makes trying to organize a grass-roots campaign in a Democratic Primary race much harder than trying to do it in a General Election. The calendar says you have more time to do it before a general election, and more people pay attention to a general election than a primary.
And, if you elect non-Democrats\Republicans in the general election, now you have representatives who are willing to look at changing the election laws such that democracy can function. If you elect ANY Democrat or Republican, the only thing they care about is maintaining election laws that favor the dominence of these parties. Even a ‘good Democrat’ who opposes the war will vote against any decent election reforms that might make what the citizens think more important than what the big donors think.
And, if you work to build a movement outside the existing corporate parties, you are building something for the future. Every effort I’ve ever seen to build a primary campaign completely vanishes after the primary election. Poof, its gone. But if you put your efforts into building something new that will represent you, then this can continue and grow from one election to the next. Maybe we don’t win in the first election, but we can keep right on building to the next election. No candidate I’ve ever seen running from inside one of these parties ever has that sort of commitment to building a movement. Their loyalty to their pro-corporate party is more important to them. And before you say Kucinich, please remember his endorsement of Kerry in 2004, and the endorsement for Hillary\Obama that’s coming in a few months.
The best thing we can do is to destroy the Democratic Party by creating a third party that truly represents their voters. Simple causing the Democrats to lose elections by our presence OUTSIDE their party is a good thing. Its probably the only thing that could change the pro-corporate, pro-war nature of the current beast that calls itself the Democratic Party.
I’ll make a bet. Bush will not declare martial law and nulify the next election. Two reasons.
One, Bush seems sick of the job and wants to go home. No matter how lazy a President he seems, he’s still working harder at this job than he ever has worked in his life. And every expression on his face says he’s sick of this and wants it to end.
Two, they aren’t that crude any more. That’s so 1930’s. Nowadays, they have such control over the entire election process from candidate selection to vote counting that they don’t need to do this in order to be confident that the people ‘elected’ in the next election will continue their policies.
He won’t declare martial law, since the gameplan has been to introduce a fascism which is devoid of symbol, uniform or salute. It’s embedded into our economy, depersonalized. Slipped in that way.
I was at the rally on Saturday in washington and I thought the number was greater than 20,000. People were very spred out so it was difficult to count and not everyone went to the steps of the capitol building. Probably most people do not want to confront the police
I thought this description was accurate of the event:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13807
How the Media Marginalizes the Anti-War Movement
by Anthony DiMaggio
EMail Article to a Friend
It was a dramatic scene for all of those who attended the September 15th (2007) anti-war protest in Washington D.C. Members of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War led a march of tens of thousands of activists from the White House to the Capitol building to deliver a petition demanding that Congress cut off funding for the Iraq war, now in its fifth year. After a symbolic “die in” in which thousands of protestors laid down on the Capitol building grass to show their solidarity for those killed in Iraq, the Iraq veterans attempted to cross a police barricade to deliver their anti-war petition to Congress.
Inspired by the Veterans’ actions, dozens of protestors also tried to cross the police line, knowing that they would be arrested, subdued by D.C. police, and taken away up the steps of the building. These protestors went non-violently, one-by-one, over a wall towards the Capitol building – some holding up pictures of loved ones killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all, hundreds of Anti-war activists were arrested under “disorderly conduct” charges, as thousands cheered them on with chants of “Arrest George Bush” and “Stop the War.”
The September 15th protest retains a special symbolism in that it represents a dramatic shift in anti-war activism toward more vigilant, confrontational resistance, with a greater reliance on civil disobedience and direct action. Cindy Sheehan voiced this new opposition well, as she explained that protestors had grown tired of simply marching and congratulating each other on their anti-war placards. Anti-war efforts would now focus on nonviolently “shutting the city down,” so as to force Washington’s political leaders to pay serious attention to the anti-war movement.
This protest narrative is potentially powerful for those Americans unfamiliar with the eclectic nature of the anti-war movement. In a country where “supporting the troops” is often assumed to mean supporting the Iraq war, increased coverage of anti-war veterans threatens to destroy conventional stereotypes and dogmas. The American public’s access to information concerning the veteran anti-war movement has generally been restricted, however, at least if the media reaction to the September 15th protest is any indication. A systematic review of local and national mass media coverage of the event reveals a picture of the protest that is virtually unrecognizable to those who attended. On nearly every major point of coverage, the mainstream press systematically distorted the news so as to convey serious misrepresentations of the reality on the ground.
There is much much more information at the link
Saturday’s march in DC was not a Peace march it was a End This War Now and Impeachment march, with impeachment gaining ground as the number one organizing principle.
The march was attended by many more than 20,000 (50-60K by most estimates including my own first hand view), and, compared to other demonstrations I’ve attended, was the youngest crowd yet.
Also, the fact that the march was lead by Iraqi War Veterans is a huge factor. As is the fact that they forced arrest along with hundreds of others - the energy of civil disobediance is just starting to simmer never mind the impending boil over.
When will the boil over come? Well, narrow the argument to impeachment and make your way to DC on and/or before the 29th, and mark your calanders for October 27th. Talk to everyone about one action - IMPEACHMENT.
And get ready for arrest: in the name of justice, humanity and all that America stands for…get ready for arrest in the name of one word - IMPEACHMENT!
Reid’s “dramatic” and “tense” meeting in New York this past Monday with “tough-minded” war critics like AAEI, Win Without War and MoveOn, is akin to Bush bravely confronting his critics at the American Legion.
I mean, this bit about Reid “begging” AAEI and Win Without War to focus their efforts on Republicans only is an outright charade, pure theater for the Kool-Aid drinking masses. That “coalition” of mainstream groups under the heading AAEI was formed as a 2008 campaign vehicle for the specific purpose of targeting Republicans only and taking heat off Democrats. Tom Andrews’ group – Win Without War – has committed itself to serving a similar function since launching its campaign this past Spring against politically vulnerable Republicans in Blue states. While MoveOn is a slightly tougher customer, the General Betray Us ads demonstrate that MoveOn has chosen to ignore the most dramatic betrayal story over these last nine months, focusing blame instead on those who have actually kept their promise to the American people about the War and the need to continue it—Bush and the Pentagon. It says it all, does it not, that MoveOn is actually still debating as to whether it should take any positions in the upcoming Democratic primaries????? While Eli Pariser pretends to play the threat of actually holding the Democrats accountable at some future point, that appears to be pure theater as well, since he has never actually followed through to any meaningful extent.
Caveat–these comments do not apply to United for Peace and Justice, the one “anti-war” group mentioned that is authentic and non-partisan.
In previous marches there was a theatrical element with costumes, clever signs and music. With this one the people were more serious, and it was less like a street party, although people were still friendly and pleasant.
Code Pink was there and added an excitement with their bus and colorful costumes. I also saw a giant Hillary puppet with hands that were skeletal. I saw many veterans carrying flags like the POW flag. I saw one veteran who had lost the lower part of one leg and had the new silver half moon replacement for a lost leg.
The protesters were well dressed and looked like a cross section of middle class America. Some people had brought their children and a few even had babies with them.
The pro war people lined a section of the route taken by the anti war people and were calling out to them. Some people were going over and arguing with the pro war people, but I saw no physical arguments and I did not see any police at that point. The pro war people seemed to be filtering in towards the anti war group near the capitol at the end of the march. They were there to harass imo.
Its hard to harass people though who look so traditionally American and with their children ..but I did see some pro war people shouting out even to children.
If people who fought in Iraq engage in civil disobediance I think it will be difficult for many of the police to arrest these men who have made scacrifices for their nation. If military men turn against this war that will make a tremendous difference imo
COMarc writes (at last a substantive argument):
> “The key point about the rules of the Democratic primaries is that they allow the big money people to flood a candidates coffers with $3,000,000.00.”
Very good. That shows how hard it will be to win Democratic primary races for small-money progressives. But it won’t be any easier to win general elections for small-money Green or Red candidates. In either case, you will have to substitute grassroots organization for money, internet for TV, and so on. If you can do one, you can do the other, and the Democratic route is still the easier route to power (the other is essentially a dead end) because you capture the nomination within a left-of-center voter population and you go on to the general with the nomination of a major party.
> “The Democrats can choose any rules for their internal contests as long as they stay within the limits of federal law. Thus the Democrats could easily choose Clean Money\Clean Election rules for their primaries.”
Maybe. But they could not force such rules (not for want of trying) on the other party for the general election.
> “That they don’t says wonders for what and who the Democrats are. They are the other party of big money.”
They are the other party that actually wins elections. In the absence of anything remotely resembling an effectively organized grassroots movement, they have no other way to win elections than by reaching voters through TV advertising and other media that cost big money. Show them a way to get voters to the polls without that money, and they might be interested. Better than that, you won’t have to convince them. Just get your voters to the polls and you can replace them.
But actually, if you can just get a reasonable-sized block of voters to the polls, you’ll find you have some real influence with the “corporate sellouts.”
> “The counter to this is a grass-roots driven campaign. These take longer to organize.”
Exactly. Absolutely. Precisely. Right on.
> “Americans only focus on elections closer to election day. That combination makes trying to organize a grass-roots campaign in a Democratic Primary race much harder than trying to do it in a General Election. The calendar says you have more time to do it before a general election, and more people pay attention to a general election than a primary.”
This is all true, but we have seen over and over that grassroots campaigns for independent or third-party candidates which start from nothing and are fueled by election season energy still don’t have enough time (Catch-22) to beat the duopoly, and fall apart soon after the election.
> “if you elect non-Democrats\Republicans in the general election, now you have representatives who are willing to look at changing the election laws”
Sure, and if you find a magic lamp containing a powerful genie, you could use it to create universal peace and justice.
The point is, you can’t get there from here. Why have the Greens not won one single major race anywhere in the US? Because it’s winner-take-all.
Actually, there are some Democrats willing to look at changing the election laws, but nothing short of rewriting the Constitution would allow you to break out of winner-take-all elections, which are the fundamental reason for the duopoly. It will never happen. But the two-party system isn’t the real problem at all. The real problem is inequality, corporate power, and corporate-controlled media, combined with a lazy public content to be consumers of everything from popcorn to war.
Progressives can wield power through the two-party system if we get organized to do so, and can face the fact that we will only have as much power as our numbers and degree of organization give us.
> “if you work to build a movement outside the existing corporate parties, you are building something for the future. Every effort I’ve ever seen to build a primary campaign completely vanishes after the primary election.”
If you work to build a movement like Progressive Democrats, MoveOn, or your own group if you don’t like any of those, running or supporting selected Democratic candidates, and pressuring those in power, you are building something for the future.
I’ve seen Green campaigns, the Nader campaign, and lots of little pseudo-parties come and go. The fact is, no third party effort has been able to get anywhere since this country faced its greatest crisis 150 years ago. The two-party system is unbeatable, because of winner-take-all.
What will happen to you if you try to create a third party is that you will lose again and again. After five presidential election cycles, you will be 20 years older. As the generation of activists that founded your party grows old and grey without ever winning, your dream will finally fall apart. That has been the fate of every third party movement since the Civil War.
> “The best thing we can do is to destroy the Democratic Party by creating a third party that truly represents their voters. Simple causing the Democrats to lose elections by our presence OUTSIDE their party is a good thing.”
First, you can’t destroy the Democratic Party, but you can help Republicans to win elections. Or you could work to elect, as Democrats, people who truly represent their voters. Second, if you think the best or only way to change people’s behavior is to threaten and punish them, I’m sure glad you’re not my father (or president).
Well, Mr Grimm, you label yourself a member of the MSM when you say, “On Saturday, only about 20,000 gathered for what was billed a major peace march,” as if it were fact.
Just another day in the life marginalizing the majority.
MoveOn made a catastrophic mistake by siding with the party instead of the movement around appropriations and continues to wimp out on impeachment. Visit http://BackboneCampaign.org - and watch this fun new “Throw the bums out” video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=GmC2sds7Y60
all this talk about democrats, and no mention of DENNIS KUCINICH!
ya the system sucks, but we gotta work with what we have for now (not to say 3rd party movements and revolution isn’t good too) and what we have is the opportunity to promote a good candidate for the democratic presidential nomination.
Dennis has been against he war from day one, and he has introduced a bill HR1234 to end the war immediately. the bill we need is on the table, the leader we need is running for president. if we simultaneously support him in his campaign, and the bill, we will work towards two goals at once (getting a good president and ending the war) with more effectiveness than either alone. even if he doesn’t win, if we can give him enough support it will force the other candidates to take his side on ending the war. and if clinton, obama, and edwards support the bill, that will give other representatives the confidence to support it.
enough shouting in the wind, get smart and say the right names: DENNIS KUCINICH and HR1234 to end the war!
Dennis Kucinich is a fraud. He’s there to fool the Democratic base and keep them from leaving this phony party. At the end we know he’ll support Hitlery, Obomber or Edwards Scissorhands.
In the latest poll, out yesterday, the Democrat controlled Congress approval ratings stand at 11%
If the almost nine out of every ten voters that are mad at both the Repubs and the Dems were to vote third party rather than for the lesser of two evils then third party candidates could indeed win.
As for the Democrats being unable to stop the war, b#llsh#t. They could stop any funding bill from even ever getting out of committee, which they chair as the majority. They don’t even need the simple majority to block such a bill on the floor of the House.
They could also filibuster any funding bill in the Senate with 41 votes.
The fact is they are unwilling to end it, not unable. They are afraid they will be accused of not supporting the troops. But again all they have to do is state they are willing to fund any war measure that sets a deadline for withdrawal and that nothing else will reach the President’s desk. If he then accuses them of not supporting the troops they can say that it is him that won’t support them because it is him that won’t sign the funding bill they are willing to approve.
As for Harry Reid not supporting impeachment. The House impeaches and if they vote to do so the Senate has no choice but to conduct the trial. Harry Reid nor any other Senator can block it. He has no say.
Nancy Pelosimpeachmentisoffthetable is the one blocking it and has been from even before she was elected as Speaker of the House.
One more pet peeve. Today I heard yet one more analyst state that Congress’s approval ratings are so low because people are tired of the Dems and the Repubs fighting. Wrong, people are mad because the Dems won’t stand up to the Repubs and fight. And with an approval rating of 11% they better start listening and heeding the electorate or IMO they are in as much danger of losing their cushy jobs as the Repubs are in 2008.
Lobo Gris
RichM September 19th, 2007 4:21 pm
“In the real world, though, the Dem Party machine does indeed often keep people off the ballots. For instance, in Henry Hyde’s old Chicago district in 2006, the pro-war Rahm Emanuel (who oversaw the candidates chosen for 22 Dem congressional campaigns) managed to keep a serious antiwar candidate, Christine Cegelis, off the ballot, while ensuring that Iraq war vet & double-amputee Tammy Duckworth would be the Democratic nominee.”
This is a more complete article on the tactics by the Democratic leadership to decide who does and doesn’t win in the primaries:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml
Harry Reid is right; the lie is seen; the war is lost.
The new Democrat party line is “We Can’t”.
“We can’t stop the war in Iraq”
“We can’t stop the filibuster”
“We can’t impeach the president”
“We can’t prevent a war with Iran”
“We can’t. We can’t. We can’t.”
OK that’s fair. As an American citizen I understand that sometimes people just CAN’T. You must also understand that I reserve my right to kick you out and get someone in there who CAN. Get it done or get out.
WOW! Sure is a lot of defeatists posting here today.
There is only one solution for the Dems:
Simultaneously cutting off funds for the war and beginning impeachment of Bush.
This will keep Bush out in front for starting an illegal war and insulate Dems from ‘losing the war’ rhetoric.
If everyone who complained about the Democrats got involved in taking them on — both, inside the primaries & in the general elections — we would get somewhere.
Check out http://www.FreeTheDemocrats.com
Lobo Gris writes:
“This is a more complete article on the tactics by the Democratic leadership to decide who does and doesn’t win in the primaries:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml ”
The article describes how the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has worked to promote centrist and conservative Democratic candidates against progressives. The short version of how they do it: money, media, endorsements, propaganda. The same things we are up against when we run in general elections, whether as Democrats, Greens, or independents.
The DCCC is just one structure identified within the Democratic Party. Its own leadership may or may not be vulnerable to takeover by progressive forces. However, nobody ever said there weren’t conservative and corporate forces working within the Party. The task is to fight them and win.
If progressives can’t take on corporate forces within the Democratic Party and win in Democratic primary races, where most of the voters are left of center, how could we take on the same corporate forces and win in general elections without the boost given by having the huge block of regular Democratic voters behind us?
If we can organize independently of existing Democratic Party structures, as Greens, Reds, or whatever, then we can either play pretend third-party politics and simply lose, or else we can work through the two-party system and get our own candidates nominated or, at least, have some real weight to throw around when we try to pressure less progressive Democrats.
Every so once in a while I see a post criticizing the dems and I think some of them are from Republicans trying to depress voter turnout for Democrats
While I also am very dissappointed in the Dems ..
There is no alternative but to vote Democratic and keep trying to move that party to the left.
Chuck Hagel tried to bring some common sense to the Republicans but he is leaving after this term.
The Republicans must be soundly defeated in the next election. The Republican Party has defended the Bush policies, which are imo treasonous.
Bush and Cheney should be IMPEACHED!
Eventually the nation must be made aware of the treasonous actions taken by the Bush administration. We have a leader who has betrayed America and not protected American lives.
Lots of frustrated folks here.Best Idea Ive come across is the call by Garret Keizer for a General Strike. He has a great piece in Harpers that says, in essence, quit whining and let’s do what needs to be done. November 6th, general strike for the sole purpose of removing this regime from power.Get the word out.
colleen September 20th, 2007 12:08 pm
“There is no alternative but to vote Democratic and keep trying to move that party to the left.”
And that is exactly what the Democrats and the Republicans both count on. The attitude that the voter has that they have no place else to go. The attitude that allows the two parties to stay in power while still ignoring the people that vote them into office.
Enough is enough, it’s time for real change, change that we aren’t going to get from either the Republicans or Democrats. And with an 11% Congressional approval rating it just might really be time to see a third party be able to make some real inroads into what has been a duopoly that has ill served the country and the American voter.
I’ll say it again; if the almost nine out of every ten voters that are mad at Congress would vote for real change third party candidates could indeed win.
The alternative, four more years of the same-o same-o with the same frustrations because the politicians ignore us once they have our vote.
Lobo Gris
tetti_tatti:
How DARE you question the integrity of Kucinich. You can go ahead and work on the far, far fringes of the political spectrum and hope to accomplish national harmony. By staying within the Democratic party and pushing it as best he can, Kucinich reaches far more people than were he 3rd party. A visionary within the Democratic party, it’s too good to be true, and perhaps a sad truth why his poll numbers aren’t higher.
I’m not against him choosing to defect and run as 3rd party, but in the meantime, don’t hate on the only candidate who brings true, complete integrity to his candidacy. I can’t wait to see how he goes at it in this week’s upcoming debate.