by Chris Bowers, Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 11:57:39 AM EDT
- Bush administration to request another $110M for Iraq next year. Forget all of the nearly pointless resolutions, the fight over this funding will be the real debate over Iraq in Congress. Even though I have favored withdrawal since late 2003, my position on funding the occupation has changed. At first, I thought it was right to vote in favor of Iraq funding, because it would be wrong to leave our soldiers in Iraq without proper equipment and resources. However, I now believe that stopping the funding is the only way to end this disastrous occupation and bring our troops home. End the war by de-funding it, Democrats. Jack Murtha has a useful letter that compares the cost of war and the cost of various domestic programs.
- Majority Leader John Boehner's issue page
- Lieberman video at Crooks and Liars: It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril.
Lieberman's attitude toward Democratic criticism of the war seems identical to the attitude of his supporters when it comes to the will of the voters. In both cases, the sentiment is that we should all shut up, because he knows best.
- Street Prophets interviews Obama. While it is true that my criticism of Obama last month was based not on something he actually said, but rather on something that the AP reporter wrote about him, it doesn't stop me from feeling used. As a union organizer for the IFT, I was one of the ground troops for Obama's campaign during the 2004 Illinois Senate primary, and his victory turned out to be the first electoral victory for a progressive movement candidate in the netroots era. It was a great, great moment, and using the new movement was critical to his success in that primary. Whether I am right or wrong in feeling this, it makes me feel as though he used us to get into office, and now he is Sista Soljuh-ing us through liberal strawmen to improve his national image. Frankly, I think he is running with the wrong people in DC, and he needs to remember that the progressive movement is his friend, not the New Republic.
- I have regularly praised Mark Warner for making smart campaign moves, but I think this is a colossal mistake:Recalling a recent fundraiser for his political action committee, Warner said, "Somebody looked around and said 25 percent of the people in the room are Republicans."
"That goes to the appeal we are trying to make," he said. "This country can't afford further polarization." Absent a large Democratic trifecta, any Democrat falling for what I have called The Equal Polarization Myth is going to have a very tough time governing like a progressive in Washington DC. IF your political opponents are the ones who have instigated an age of polarization through a base turnout strategy, strong right-wing ideological turns, and a complete departure from independents when it comes to public opinion, then you are making a grave mistake to be the person who does the reaching out in an attempt to end the polarization. Basically, Democrats have not moved to the left, while Republicans have moved to the right. Reaching out to people who have moved to the right validates moving to the right itself. If you do this, you will be forced into a box where you will have to govern as a conservative. And then they will try to illegally remove you from office anyway (see Clinton, Bill post-1994).