MyDD :: Do What McJoan Says

by juls on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:21:48 PM EST

McNerney is going to get some heat for his no vote. There has already been grumblings of discontent from activists who helped him win in the fall. This will add fuel to the fire.

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep. Gonna get a bit bumpy.

by Master Jack on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I donated to McNerney last fall.

I didn't donate to him so he could go to Congress and be a wuss.

I think I'll donate elsewhere next year.

by juls on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dunno if it will change your mind, but here is his response.

McNerney - Iraq (none / 0)

I also gave to McNerney. I read his response and the excellent discussion that followed. Thanks for the link. Gotta say I'm still conflicted on the best course but I think Eugene captured very well the argument against McNerney's vote:

I am concerned (7.25 / 4)
By the language of "responsible course" and similar things in McNerney's nonspecific statement.

How exactly was the McGovern bill irresponsible? The redeployment out of Iraq was fully funded. So the redeployment plan then was clearly responsible.

I am then left wondering about the "reduce the violence in Iraq" and "prevents the violence from spreading to other countries" language. Those are direct echoes of Republican talking points about our presence in Iraq, and we would rightly expect that someone like McNerney understands their falsity. US troops there are not reducing the violence in Iraq and our presence there does nothing to stop it from spreading to other countries - and the assumption he uses seems to indicate that he believes continued US troop presences DOES either reduce violence or provide regional stability...which are Republican talking points.

I would have more respect for McNerney and his staff if they explained the true reasons for this cowardly vote - that they were suddenly afraid that a strong stance against the Iraq War would hurt them in 2008 (when McNerney and his team should know better, given the reasons for their 2006 victory) or that they knuckled under to pressure from higher up.

McNerney failed us today. Once again we are reminded that even though we must work with them for the moment, we cannot trust the Democrats to protect our values or pursue the policies we elected them to enact.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave
by: eugene @ Thu May 10, 2007 at 19:47:11 PM PDT

by Curt Matlock on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by umcpgreg on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:39:18 PM EST

Any coincidence that the two republicans who voted yes are running for president?

Check out Calitics, the progressive Community blog for California.

That's John Duncan, you're thinking of Duncan Hunter who is running for president. He's very pro-War

by utbrian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do What McJoan Says (3.00 / 2)

Drat those Dems. Pombo and Bonilla would certainly have voted wholeheartedly for withdrawal, if only we'd let them stay in office. McNerney and Rodriguez are huge, HUGE steps backwards from the days of Republican rule!

by admiralnaismith on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:39:21 PM EST

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so it's worth it as long as at least one of their votes is better than the person they replaced? That's kinda lame logic.

Re: Do What McJoan Says (3.00 / 2)

One? That's an exaggeration. One mess-up doesn't deserve complete and total abandonment. As well, I find it interesting that people are loved one second, and after one vote are suddenly the biggest mistake of a candidate, and then back to great after a few more good votes.

by JewishJake on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This vote is different (none / 0)

For a lot of us who walked for McNerney, this was one of the motivating factors. Iraq isn't just some vote. It's the vote. I'm not giving up on him yet, but it's going to be hard to justify driving out to Danville next year for this kind of BS.

Check out Calitics, the progressive Community blog for California.

by utbrian on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

JewishJake,

I very much agree with your basic premise. However, some votes are indeed much much bigger than others. A vote that has to do with this occupation is pretty damn profound, don't ya think?

According to your logic, no one should have any problem whatsoever with Hillary Rodham Clinton's voting record.

by jgarcia on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

Hillary's got a pretty good record.

by jallen on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:29:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:42:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Continue:

# On October 10, 2002, Clinton spoke to the Senate in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."

# On December 15, 2003, when it was clear there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton's support was unwavering. "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force," she told the Council on Foreign Relations. "We have no option but to stay involved and committed."

# On April 20, 2004, Clinton told CNN's Larry King that she did not "regret giving the president the authority," noting that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

# In October 2005, amid growing anti-war sentiment, Clinton still told the Village Voice: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

# By November 2005, Hillary was softening her stance, saying in a letter to constituents: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed."

# On December 18, 2006, Clinton went even further, saying on the "Today" show: "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

# On January 13 of this year, Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush's call for a troop surge: "I don't know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work."

# On January 17, Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government.

# Finally, on January 27, Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.

You fill in the context that shows she has an amazing record?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:43:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Note: The Before and After running for President.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

I'm not a single-issue voter. I meant in the aggregate. I can find some votes I disagree with, but on the whole, it's a pretty good record.

by jallen on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:38:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by Lucas O'Connor on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:08:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Compared to what though? Everyone always judges voting records without establishing what the standard is.

by umcpgreg on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:39:59 PM EST

Lol, j/k. I read Duncan and thought Duncan Hunter. Anywho, Ron Paul's a good kid sometimes.

Re: What Says (3.00 / 1)

WTF
Ciro Rodriguez?
He voted against the war resolution
back when, IIRC, but now he's standing
shoulder to shoulder with Henry Cuellar?

by Woody on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:41:32 PM EST

Re: What Says (none / 0)

The war must be wildly popular in his district, I guess.

We need to have a draft that applies ONLY to congressional districts whose representatives support the war.

by Master Jack on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Says (none / 0)

fuckin A. Ciro? That CD ain't for this war. I'm sick of this shit. It's one thing if one of our people comes from a red district, but this isn't one of them. and, besides, this war ain't popular even in purple or even red areas.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Says (none / 0)

I'm really surprise. I almost think it might be a mistake. Ciro has always been 100% anti-Iraq-war. Is everyone sure we have the right ROdriguez here?

by pontificator on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:48:08 PM EST

"Most of the others are Rahm-bots."

Though he voted yes.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

To comment on two from the list, McNerney could have voted yes without political damage. Giffords, OTOH, has a Tim Bee breathing down her neck and has a 100% perfect porgressive record so far. I'll forgive her this one, but it is disappointing.

by jgarcia on Thu May 10, 2007 at 06:58:41 PM EST

indeed on McNerney (3.00 / 1)

That seems to be the thought at Calitics.

by Bob Brigham on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by global yokel on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:02:35 PM EST

Will somebody in McNerney's district please give his office a call and ask for an explanation of his vote....?

by Bob Brigham on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hopefully they'll put something up on Calitics (him and his staff have a long and great relationship with the site).

by janinsanfran on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:31:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McNerney is a big disappointment. His campaign literature which we used in Pombo's home town made it perfectly clear that McNerney was running AGAINST the war. He didn't need to do this.

Can It Happen Here?

Give these guys a break (none / 0)

These guys are from tough districts and have to moderate their records to get reelected.

by Toddwell on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:08:10 PM EST

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

when 66% of the entire country (including voters from all sides) are against the war now, it isn't risky to vote for withdrawal.

as even tweety says, NO ONE in 2006 lost by being too much against the war. and i am sure it'll be that way in 2008. indeed, the risk for our side - the Dems - is if they are perceived to NOT BE DOING ENOUGH to get the hell out.

things have changed. so these guys blow into office benefitting from attitudes against the war, but when it's time to vote, sell out. hmmm, and that's smart? we have to give them a break?

by jgarcia on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Toddwell on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some of these districts are very, very tough and these guys must vote their district. I have already read a lot of letters to editors in these districts that have chided their representitive for voting for "defeat" in Iraq and in "lock step" with Nancy Pelosi. These guys know their districts and know that they have to represent their constituents.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

yeah, we know that letters to the editor are a great reflection of the mood. hmmm, newspapers bend over backwards to publish an even number, no matter what the percentages are.

CWA, Christian coalition, john birches, they all have LTE writing campaigns. LTEs mean shit.

by jgarcia on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McNerney was no fan of the war during his campaign, that's for sure. Nobody thought they were voting for someone interested in prolonging the American presence.

the war is getting less popular (none / 0)

with almost no chance of getting a "bounce".

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Thu May 10, 2007 at 08:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Master Jack on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "moderate" position is disengagement from Iraq. The details may vary, but staying in Iraq indefinitely is the fringe position.

by Lucas O'Connor on Thu May 10, 2007 at 10:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just how valuable is reelection if you have to kill people for it?

by PsiFighter37 on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:20:16 PM EST

The others aren't all that surprising - it's still disappointing, though.

McNerney, though - WTF?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Thu May 10, 2007 at 07:33:22 PM EST

Progressives in KS (or just sane people) need to do something about Boyda... How the hell did she get through? She's a disaster democrat:

Thinkprogress: "FACT CHECK: Congress Does Not Have To Fund Escalation In Iraq

Last night on ABC News, newly elected Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) said she would support funding for 20,000-40,000 more troops in Iraq because President Bush "is the commander in chief. ...We don't get that choice. Congress doesn't make that decision."...
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/05/cong ress-escalation/

by pontificator on Thu May 10, 2007 at 11:23:21 PM EST

"Rahmbots" is no longer operative as an insult here, since Rahm voted with the good guys.

by eddersen1 on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:41:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

people on this site bear the strangest grudges against rahm. i sorta like the guy.

by Bob Brigham on Fri May 11, 2007 at 12:44:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, there were less than 20 more seats he could have won if he weren't a DLC wanker. It reminds of the old quote about being born on third base and thinking you've hit a triple. He was a disaster in a good year so people apologize for all his mistakes.