Lets kick our feet all the way into the primaries.  (snark)

They often have trouble doing what is right.  We need to build the netroots and transform the Democratic Party.  That means selected primaries.

People power will not be easy, because so much money is alligned against us.  The netroots needs to get serious.  You, Chris, and the others here at MyDD seem to understand that better than some other "progressive" blogs.

The war is not going to be ended before 2009.  So what do we do to try to make a movement for real change while it continues?

Personally I don't have a problem with the resolution without teeth.

While I want the war to stop I don't think it is vitally important to stop it right this second.  The  way it is stopped is much more important in my opinion and that will have lasting consequences for decades.

Not only must this war be stopped.  It must be done in such a way that the next war is seen as a political loser.

Why is Richardon's proposal not being talked about? He's calling for a repeal of the authorization of force for Iraq, with an end date to that authorization. That avoids the whole "not funding the troops" counter-argument and keeps the focus on the central question: who wants to end the war, and who wants to continue it?

Am I missing something here? That seems like a much better alternative to cutting off funding.

Two electoral things you can do that will make the DC crowd pay attention:

(1)Steny Hoyer -- it ought to be possible to find someone willing to primary Hoyer. Probably a young Iraq veteran given the heavy military presence in his distrct. I think the main campus of the University of Maryland is located within his district, too. A Green Party candidate picked up 16% of the general election vote against Hoyer in '06.

(2)Find someone to run against John Warner in Virginia. The DC based press corps gives disproportionate coverage to political events in Maryland and Virginia. Right now, the DPV is fumbling away this opportunity by waiting on Mark Warner (who won't run for Senate because he's angling for the VP nod and would rather be governor again) Recruit a candidate (maybe young Air Force veteran David Englin), the state party establishment is probably too inept and too scared to try to stop you. Heck, you'll probably scare Warner away from running for reelection at all.

Agree that the Democrats need to move more forcefully.
They really have little to fear from the Republican rhetoric.

On an off the floors of Congress, Republicans make at least 2 claims that make no sense.

"If we don't succeed over there, the terrorists will attack us over here." Do they really believe that terrorists are waiting for some Iraq outcome before trying to hurt us here? If we "win" in Iraq, can we then let our guard down?

"If we fail in Iraq, Al Qaeda will be established in Iraq." Putting aside the fact that our invasion first brought some Al Qaeda to Iraq, we have little to fear if more are present. If they come, let them deal with the civil war there. And what will they gain in Iraq, use of all the nukes and other WMD that are there

Republicans also claim that end the war resolutions undermine the morale of the troops. I doubt that most soldiers are affected greatly by Wahington politics. And if you ask them if they would like to see the end of the occupation and come home, guess what they would say.

Homer  www.altara.blogspot.com

Is it time to work to run primary campaigns against Democrats who won't argue for ending the war?  

This is the anti-Lieberman strategy, right?  I just want to make sure I understand what you're proposing and that I thoroughly consider what the implications are.

Seriously, people who disagree with their representatives ought to run themselves and give the public a choice between the status quo and an alternative.  But that will not necessarily lead to an end to the war.

I also think the Richardson proposal makes good sense.

While running primary challenges to Democratic leaders based on the non-binding resolution seems tempting, I think it is important to remember the political contraints within the Democratic Congress is operating.  It'd be within Democratic power to end the war only if a Democrat was in the White House; resolutions cutting off funds for the escalation, the war in general, or repealing the Authorization for Use of Force may be meritorious, but they would also face certain veto.  Unfortunately, the non-binding resolution is the best the 110th Congress can do.

From the practical side of electioneering, it's also certainly the case that anti-war challengers won't be ousting Hoyer or Pelosi in a primary any time soon.  Primary challengers to true hawks like Tauscher are probably a better way to reshape the party going forward.  

Interesting timing for this diary, as we are in the middle of a three-day debate in the House, to be followed by a record vote that will peel off dozens and dozens of Republicans from Bush's plan.  Congresswoman Woolsey, in a diary that was promoted to the front page, has assured us that this is only the first step.

Of course we all want things to move faster.  The Senate is a frustrating body, but Harry Reid has said this week that he's willing to follow Pelosi's approach, and that's a good place to start.  The fact is that if the Democrats led off with the aggressive position we all want them to take, we'd make it easy for the Republicans to solidify against it, and we'd end up with nothing but a filibuster or, at best, a veto.  That might be awesome for our political prospects in 2008 but it wouldn't end the war.

However, by peeling off as many Republicans as we can before forcing the ultimate issue, we gain more political momentum and there's more of a chance of actually accomplishing something.  There are no guarantees, but it's certainly the smarter approach if the goal is to actually end the war, as opposed to scoring political points while the war rages on.

I really can't believe anyone would question the seriousness of Nancy Pelosi's opposition to the war.  If I were the Speaker, I'd want to punch you in the teeth for writing this diary.

My immediate reaction is to join you in your position! Lets turn on the democrats! Yeah, that's the ticket! I'm sure the repuglicans will be glad to espire us on in our effort to tear each other apart! I know, I know, I know! I feel angry and frustrated with the Democrats too, for not having the Balls to stand up and do the right thing. BUT! let's not forget who the real enemy is. I think we have to use our anger in a way that will place blame where it belongs on the REPIGLICANS and BUSH and at the same time giving some firm persuasive Tatesterone to the self neutered Dems on our own side.  

Based on the following quote from Matt's posting:

""two other Democratic Senate proposals that have actual teeth -- one by Russell Feingold to cut off money for the war, another by Barack Obama to mandate troop reductions -- were ignored by the leadership."

It would seem that one way the netroots could show their support for the most aggressive Democratic proposal for ending the war would be to...each send Barack Obama $10 via ActBlue.

We have a presidential candidate who opposed the war.

We have a presidential candidate who has, by netroots description above, a proposal before Congress "with teeth" for ending the war.

If netroots are serious about ending the war, that seems to the perfect nexus for proving it.  

Create an "Obama: Bring the Troops Home" fund on ActBlue so it's clear the contribution is in reward for the most aggressive end the war plan that Congress can actually vote on.

It would be very similar to netroots showing support for Dean's speaking out against the Iraq War and changing the dynamic of the 2004 election.

The idea that the Dems, with a bare majority in the Senate (and that resting on Lieberman) were going to stop the war was always extremely improbable. (Especially with polls showing the public may be against the war, but is also against Congress defunding it.)

As long as Bush is in office the war will continue, and Bush will remain in office because the GOP base still supports him. Basically that the war would continue until January 2009 was decided in November 2004 by the American voter. If that voter regrets that now, well unfortunately there are no refunds or exchanges.

Rather than attacking Dems for that, we should be concentrating on ensuring that the GOP is stuck with the bill and a Dem elected to the WH in 2008. That is unless you want the war to continue another 6 years, instead of 2.

I agree with the article and comments and have had this on my mind for several weeks.  Those who ran for election who oppose this war won.  In the minds of everyone this was a mandate.

What are they doing?  In our minds, nothing, or very little.  One would hope there is a method to this delay, but who knows for sure?  We are very accustomed to "empty promises" from politicians, who while running for office promise the moon but once elected never deliver. The "First 100 Hours" was nice and was a giant step in the right direction, but we all know that Iraq was the primary reason Democrats were given control of Congress.

It's as if "we the People" don't matter.  Am I wrong on this?  Are we merely being placated here with the passage of other popular legislation?  We spoke and we said what we had to say very loudly and forcefully.  There was no ambiguity.

Who's listening? Is there really a plan for us to end this war?  Or is this merely "business as usual" inside the Beltway?

Washington needs to get the message that we want our government back.  It belongs to us, you know, and is only loaned to them for a set period of time, on good behavior.  If the Democrats (or certain Democrats) can't or won't deliver, what is the best way to get the message across that we will no longer tolerate this?  How do we go about doing this?

We're told that politicians don't make their decisions based on polls.  Hmmm?  That's a fine line they have to traverse, I'm sure.  If they do, that's pandering; if they don't then they're not following the will of the people.

We ARE the government!!  From the very beginning we told the world that government "of, by and for the People" must bow to the will of the people, or those who are governed have the inherent right to change their government.

I think we can all agree that we certainly don't need to change our government . . . only those who are elected, if they ignore us.

Let the debate begin on how to best reform the reformers.

The primary candidates are the key.  THEY are the ones who need to appeal to the liberal base.  THEY are the ones whose poll numbers will skyrocket when they talk about withdrawal.  THEY are the ones who will respond to pressure.

Obama, Hillary, Edwards.  

They are fighting for votes from a group (Democratic voters) whose disapproval for the war sits at 90%.  A full 63% of all Americans want a deadline for withdrawal.  None of these candidates can win without a withdrawal plan.  And the more they talk about it, the more pressure Congress will feel to follow suit.

This is where the blogosphere reveals the completely and utterly dysfunctionally retarded underpinnings of the entire movement.

Matt Stoller is so outraged he doesn't realize he just advocated running a primary on Jim Webb.

I mentioned this in a comment yesterday and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Could one possible step be to amend the Authorization for the Use of Military Force so that it includes language limiting it entirely to Iraq itself in order to prevent incursions into Iran or at least make it much more difficult?  Seems like this would call attention to a few serious issues.

1)  Bush/Cheney's lust to expand the war into Iraq.  I don't think most people realize just how badly the administration wants to go in there, and this would call them on it, essentially forcing them to put up or shut up.  If Snow can get behind the podium and say repeatedly they have no intention of going into Iran, then the Democrats can claim it's just a clarification on policy everyone agrees.  The more aggressively they have to defend their ability to go into Iran, the more it's going to seem like war-mongering.

2)  It's a binding re-assertion of Congressional power over the Executive that it's much more difficult to claim demonstrates a lack of support for the troops.  The Democrats can rightfully claim that they're making it impossible to expand the war without its necessity being clearly defined and funded by Congress.

There are other reasons, as well, but it seems like these two in particular could be very important.  Congress badly needs to bring the Executive to heel, and this could be a powerful way to do it.

The biggest objection I can see to - it apart from the usual boilerplate - is administration claims of trying to tie their hands and limit their ability to make war, but that can very easily be turned around by someone like Webb saying "Yes, that's exactly what we're trying to do ... limit your ability to bring more troops into danger."

I'm sure there are issues I'm missing, but I'd really love to hear more from people with a lot more experience than I have.

This is one way to go - attack the readiness. I want them to go louder and bigger with it.

http://www.democrats.org/blog.html

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid send a letter:
snip
According to recent news reports, the Army lacks thousands of advanced armor kits for Humvees that could protect against roadside bombs, the cause of 70% of American casualties in Iraq. In addition, we understand that existing shortages of trucks and other crucial equipment such as jamming devices, radios and other gear will only be exacerbated by the troop surge. Lodging and logistical support is also reportedly in short supply for the newly deployed forces. We hope these reports are wrong, but we suspect they are not.

Mr. President, it is wrong to deploy troops to the Iraqi theater until they have the up-armored Humvees, equipment, lodging, training and other support required to carry out their mission.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070219/ka trina_video
VIDEO
A Message to Congress by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL on the power of the purse.

"You have the power - use it!"

"Not until he ran for Preseident."

Wrong again.

Result 1. Obama ran for office in 2004 based on opposition to Iraq war and won election. He voiced opposition to the Iraq war before US invaded and then ran and won on that same issue in 2004.

Result 2. Obama proposed (per netroots) a proposal with "teeth" to get US troops home by 2008.

Even Edwards ("I voted for it before I decided to say I'm against it") and Clinton ("I voted for it and stand by it") supporters should take $10 and put it towards the "Obama: Out of Iraq Now" fund on ActBlue since Obama is the only one in Congress who is running for President and has a real proposal to do exactly what the netroots say they want.

If netroots don't put their money where their mouth is on the out-of-Iraq-now issue, it does give some indication that netroots is a bit hypocritical on the issue...calling for action and when they get it...coming up with rationalizations for not supporting it.

I wrote along these lines last night Booman Tribune, so I'm going to post my comments there below.

The Dem Party is still a party of empire and war, like the Rethug Party: in that respect the Dem Party sides with the Republicans against the American people. That is what the Dems are doing now, by not cutting off funding for the war and holding impeachment hearings.

There seems to be a sense among Washington Dems that if the war is not stopped during Bush's presidency, that will be good for the Dem  Party. In other words, the worse things get, the better. But, as Daniel Ellsberg has pointed out, if the Dems inherit the war, it will be politically more difficult for them to end it than it is now.

If they are going to get the Democratic Party to stop being merely a more moderate version of the Republican Party, liberals and progressives are going to have to finally drop their habit of giving in to the Dem establishment "lesser evil" argument, and make it plain that if they do not get a solidly anti-war candidate--someone who has a timetable for complete withdrawal, and makes a solemn promise to adhere to it--we will not vote Democratic. We have to play that card.

Otherwise, the newly elected Dems could pull a bate-and-switch--we wanted to get out of Iraq, but now that turns out not to be so easy, due to unforeseen circumstances--like they give every indication of doing so far into 2007.

Better yet, the progressive Democratic blogosphere must build bridges with the Green Party, and express interest in anti-war Green candidates. (Nader--the only anti-war candidate in the presidential election of 2004--was not even invited to speak at the recent demonstration in Washington, even though he was in town. That is scandalous.) If the Dems do not nominate a true, firm anti-war candidate, the progressive blogosphere should support the Green candidate, if he is anti-war, and make it clear as quickly as possible that it will do so.

This is the way politics works if you want to take your party back to the people. It is time for the netroots to start setting the agenda, and not the DNC/DLC. In order to do that, playing the Green Party card has got to be part of the overall strategy. The Dem base has got to get over its reflexive falling for the standard Dem Party lesser evil ploy.

If the Dems do not impeach Bush and Cheney and let them serve their full term instead, I will see that as the last straw, the final betrayal. (I mean at least holding impeachment hearings; if they can't get enough Rethugs to cross party lines, so be it.) At that point, I will owe them nothing. They will have made the blood stain of the Bush regime on our republic and its history indelible.

Sorry folks but from where I sit I see the Democratic majority, with a few significant exceptions, working pretty consistently to achieve a binding withdrawal from Iraq.  Reid took Warner-Levin out of the Senate and into the House quickly after failing on cloture and there is, for Congress, almost a sense of haste in getting something non-binding through the House and back into the Senate with enough momentum for cloture.

The Republicans who opposed Warner-Levin in the Senate have been in a bit of ruction ever since, witness the letter by seven of them to Reid and McConnel, and there is a good chance to get this non-binding resolution through.

Meanwhile, S.433, Obama's bill, which makes a very interesting read, now has two sponsors, and it, or something like it, may soon be debated and follow the path of the non-binding resolution.  Obama's bill is actually written to be implemented without disasterous consequences and is so fairly positioned around provisions of the ISG report and the stated objectives of the Bush administration that it would be hard for Republicans to dispute it.  Yet it imposes fixed deadlines if the objectives are not met, and we can safely assume they won't.  Quite clever, really.

I am not sure what your expectations are, and pressure, and support, from the netroots will only help, but it seems to me that there is a considerable effort underway to get this kind of legislation through Congress.  It is a duty of common purpose of our legislators and ourselves to bring this war to an conclusion as soon as possible, let the chips fall where they may.  We need to understand this process to support it.

I have noticed numerous dairies here on the legislative progress of these bills, notably by skeptic06, which have received little or no comment from posters and am wondering if we are as well informed about this process as we might be.

Incidentally, I personally believe defunding, in spite of the historical precedents of McGovern-Hatfield, is not the way to go.  And we all realise a presidential veto is likely but so be it.  

>The Dem Party is still a party of empire and war, like the Rethug Party: in that respect the Dem Party sides with the Republicans against the American people. That is what the Dems are doing now, by not cutting off funding for the war and holding impeachment hearings.

If I thought it would do any good I'd just say, "Grow up." This is the attitude that gave us Bush in the first place. In fact the last six years have proved definitively that the difference between the two parties is enormous.

The most important issue facing America is not Iraq, it is getting the current far-Right GOP out of power, and keeping them out of power for, well, ever. Which is going to be very difficult when a solid third of Americans share their worldview, and not going to be made easier by those who value their personal sense of ethical purity above the reality that democratic (small-d) politics inevitably involves compromise and that no government ever has or ever will fully meet one's ideals.

Yeah, Matt--why don't you lead the charge, right over the cliff-- Nader 2008! Come on, the House IS debating the war--turn on C Span. Give Pelosi some credit. Feingold, Dodd, and now Edwards all want to cut funding of the war. Watching this 4 year long train wreck is incredibly frustrating, but blaming the Democratic Party is off base. IMHO

I think it's important to read Greenwald's full article.  He's not blaming the Democratic Congress alone.  He is also pointing the finger at the netroots:

"[O]ne sees relatively little dissatisfaction, and almost no anger, directed at the Democratic leadership for its refusal even to force a vote on genuine war-ending measures. It is unclear why that is -- perhaps there are good reasons for it -- but those reasons are difficult to discern, and these seem like questions worth examining."

The netroots shouldn't be getting all high and mighty about the Congressional Dems' hesitancy on this issue.  If we want beninding withdrawal resolution or defunding efforts, we need to communicate that to the Democratic Congress.  And as Greenwald's piece makes clear, that hasn't happened...yet.

With that in mind, the netroots should be offering Congressional Dems a mix of pressure and support.  Dems need to know that the Democratic base will have their back if they take these risks.  Candidates like Obama and Edwards deserve credit for talking about withdrawal.  Hillary should receive pressure to do the same.  

If the netroots makes its desire clear, Congress will start to respond.

Just an update on the Obama bill, I notice in THOMAS it is now listed as HR.787 in the House and has twenty-one co-sponsors.  This looks very promising.  Does anyone know anything more about the likely prospects for this legislation and when it may be reported to the floor for debate?  This could be very interesting.