Everyone Stop, Take A Deep Breathe and Regain Rationality

About a year ago, shortly after Democrats won Congress, I told a friend of mine that the right wing were the most irrational people on the face on the earth. I said they were the only ones willing to actually kill people to prove political points.

My friend's response to me; wait till your liberal base starts talking when Pelosi is speaker. He was right. I am astonish, sometimes ashamed at the irrational attitude that envelopes here. Everyone needs to calm the f*ck down. We are in a political hostage situation and I thank God none of you are hostage negotiators. I certaintly wouldn't want to be a hostage in a situation where you are.

Believe me, no one wants to see Bush dragged in chains before the ICJ for war crimes than I do, but if our only desire is to stick it to George W. Bush, then we're as wrong as he is. He's a madman, but he's a madman with power. I know it's hard to accept, but it is.

Let's look at options.

We could impeach him, but see our efforts to remove him fail in the Senate and have the MSM announce "Democrats Fail"
We could give him a bill that forces withdrawal and watch it get vetoed and watch our efforts to override the veto fail and against hear the MSM announce "Democrats Fail"
We could give him the same bill over and over again and watch option 2 occur over and over again
We could not give him any funding bill and wade in uncharted waters, watch the Pentagon further cut veterans health care, funding for equipment, and other things necessary for our troops as he will no doubt keep them in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War and watch the MSM announce "Democrats cut funding for troops" While I think this is the best option, we will no doubt spend the next year defending our decision to do it against inevitable attacks from the right and pro-military center who will see this option as Democrats caring more about beating the President than making sure our troops have what they need and as of yet, haven't gotten even with Republican funding bills...something we promised to do last year. We may win, but the odds are against us. Much like the Gingrich vs. Clinton budget battle in 1995 where the people wanted spending to be curtailed, but not if it meant their kids can't go to the Statue of Liberty or government employees are getting laid off, people want this war to end, but not if it means the already dismal treatment of soldiers will get worse.
Unless we have 50-60 Republicans backing us, the war WILL NOT end. We can cut funding, impeach, make points that will make us all happy because we beat the President, but the war will continue.

Face it, this is a hostage situation and the President is holding the troops hostage. The first thing you do as a hostage negotiator is admit the power lies with the hostage taker. you can have all the guns and tanks and helicopters in the world, but at that moment, the hostage taker has the power and you negotiate to take that power away. You don't send in an army of armed officers into the building! Like I said in a comment earlier, the President has a gun to the head of our troops and is threatening to shoot if Nancy Pelosi takes one step closer, and we're mad she's not sending in the NYPD screaming and wielding rifles.

And because she's not, we're giving up and handing the country back OVER to the hostage takers? Beating madmen with power takes time, takes patience, and means we're going to lose, sometimes fairly often.

Body
Believe me, no one wants to see Bush dragged in chains before the ICJ for war crimes than I do, but if our only desire is to stick it to George W. Bush, then we're as wrong as he is. He's a madman, but he's a madman with power. I know it's hard to accept, but it is.

Let's look at options.

1. We could impeach him, but see our efforts to remove him fail in the Senate and have the MSM announce "Democrats Fail"

2. We could give him a bill that forces withdrawal and watch it get vetoed and watch our efforts to override the veto fail and against hear the MSM announce "Democrats Fail"

3. We could give him the same bill over and over again and watch option 2 occur over and over again

4. We could not give him any funding bill and wade in uncharted waters, watch the Pentagon further cut veterans health care, funding for equipment, and other things necessary for our troops as he will no doubt keep them in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War and watch the MSM announce "Democrats cut funding for troops" While I think this is the best option, we will no doubt spend the next year defending our decision to do it against inevitable attacks from the right and pro-military center who will see this option as Democrats caring more about beating the President than making sure our troops have what they need and as of yet, haven't gotten even with Republican funding bills...something we promised to do last year. We may win, but the odds are against us. Much like the Gingrich vs. Clinton budget battle in 1995 where the people wanted spending to be curtailed, but not if it meant their kids can't go to the Statue of Liberty or government employees are getting laid off, people want this war to end, but not if it means the already dismal treatment of soldiers will get worse.

Unless we have 50-60 Republicans backing us, the war WILL NOT end. We can cut funding, impeach, make points that will make us all happy because we beat the President, but the war will continue.

Face it, this is a hostage situation and the President is holding the troops hostage. The first thing you do as a hostage negotiator is admit the power lies with the hostage taker. you can have all the guns and tanks and helicopters in the world, but at that moment, the hostage taker has the power and you negotiate to take that power away. You don't send in an army of armed officers into the building! Like I said in a comment earlier, the President has a gun to the head of our troops and is threatening to shoot if Nancy Pelosi takes one step closer, and we're mad she's not sending in the NYPD screaming and wielding rifles.

And because she's not, we're giving up and handing the country back OVER to the hostage takers? Beating madmen with power takes time, takes patience, and means we're going to lose, sometimes fairly often.

Tags: 110th congress, George W. Bush, Harry Reid, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, pentagon, war funding (all tags)

Comments

31 Comments

You express a lot of my thoughts

In one more year Bush will be gain, and if Democrats stay sane, and focused we will have expanded majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic President.

The nighmare will be over.

Or some among us can throw temper tantrums because they are not getting instant gratification and we can simply hold on to our narrow margains in Congress and hand the White House back to the wingnuts.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-13 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Everyone Stop, Take A Deep Breathe and Regain

In my view, the Democrats could be doing a lot more in terms of ending the war.  That said, I think it was less than one week after Pelosi took the Speaker's oath that I saw the first "the Democrats are a worthless disappointment" diary on Daily Kos.

I wish things happened overnight.  The smart actors in politics realize that they don't, calmly step back and look for the appropriate levers of power, and then apply pressure on them for as long as it takes.  We have a lot of raw power and passion in the netroots but we're still a little lost in terms of figuring out how to apply it.

by Steve M 2007-12-13 06:00AM | 0 recs
Yet ANOTHER blithering moron

has a diary on DK as we speak - Will electing more democrats help?

I swear to god, some of these people are just as dumb as fucking posts.  With a 1 vote majority in the senate, the minority is just as powerful as the majority, more so in many ways (no responsibility). With the WH veto on the other end, the Senate Dems are a piece of metal between a hammer and an anvil.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 07:40AM | 0 recs
THANK YOU

This is EXACTLY the case.

The Democrats are between Scylla and Charibidis.  Do they want to get eaten by a monster or destroyed by a whirlpool?

THERE ARE NO GOOD OPTIONS.

Reid and Pelosi are doing the best they can.

The ONLY WAY OUT - the ONLY WAY OUT - is the election of a Democratic POTUS and an increase in the number of Democratic Senators.  We also need a Democratic VP to raise the nuclear option.  The Repukeliscum in the Senate are OUT OF CONTROL, and they must be bludgeoned into submission.  This will require a change in the filibuster rules.  The filibuster is being abused BIGTIME, and we must change the rules to ensure that the REPUKELISCUM behave responsibly.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Everyone Stop, Take A Deep Breathe and Regain

the democratic congress gave away the store to reagan too. there is a long history (or should we say tradition?) of democratic compliancy.

by jello 2007-12-13 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Everyone Stop, Take A Deep Breathe and Regain

The Democratic Congress under Reagan had a lot more conservatives than the present Congress.  Mind you, we still managed to block Bork.

by Steve M 2007-12-13 08:14AM | 0 recs
All them Suthruners

are now republicans.

DINOs the lot.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Everyone Stop, Take A Deep Breathe and Regain

and yet polling shows the majority agree with us on the issues.

a truly rightwing nation would have bush at 80% approval right now.

by jello 2007-12-13 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Everyone Stop, Take A Deep Breathe and Regain

the top concern right now is the economy.

are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?

by jello 2007-12-13 10:08AM | 0 recs
I think it's a good question

We might be in a huge recession by election day.

In addition, we must work REALLY REALLY hard to put the responsibility for the subprime disaster squarely on the Republicans.  They did NOT adequately monitor things.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:37AM | 0 recs
Echo chamber

The netroots are an echo chamber. We speak here, and think that everyone is like us.

Well, they ain't.  There are a huge number of Americans that hate gays, and think that gay marriage is the mark of Satan.  

The OH-5 election should be a wakeup call for us.  A perfect example of what might happen in 2008.  This district voted it's composition - 55 % Repub.  If many of our 2006 victories do that, we're back in the minority.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:06AM | 0 recs
is it just me?

or do the concern trolls seem to be out in force recently on MyDD?

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: is it just me?

you're right. there is another on another thread calling kossacks ninnies. or is that what you meant.

is this astroturf?

by jello 2007-12-13 10:09AM | 0 recs
the time just isn't right to stand up to the

Republicans!

Doing the right thing scares me!

And the Democrats will never survive the disapproval of the elites!

So, let's just let the Bush administration and the GOP have what they want. Capitulation is not too great a price for maintaining the electoral viability of the Democrats.

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 10:45AM | 0 recs
Gosh, it's good you're here Carl

Harry Reid is reading this.  So, what's the solution: How can you get it so that the republicans stop filibustering everything, stop saying that we are starving the troops and pass everything we want?

I'm sure that you, like the rest of the ./.... sensible netroots, have a great answer: You are going to hold your breath until you turn blue.

Yup.  That's the ticket.

So many people beating their chests, and so many braaave warriors.   Gosh, the republicans are just shaking in their boots.  I'm sure Bob Latta is really afraid.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Gosh, it's good you're here Carl

You've accepted the GOP frame.

Don't approve the money until the Democrats get a reasonable compromise.

Take the issue to the American people.

As for Republican filibusters, the Democrats should call the game out more effectively. And they should withhold money until reasonable compromises are made.

Again, it carries some risk, but the GOP position is intrinsically unreasonable. The Democrats should be able to convey this point through the media.

If they can't, we need better politicians to stand in opposition to the GOP.

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 11:24AM | 0 recs
That'sa strategy

Exactly how are you going to do that?

Example: Funding the troops with a time limit

1) Pass a bill with time limits.  Repubs filibuster

Solution?

2) You get thru the filibuster by an act of god.  Bush vetoes.

Solution?

3) You refuse to fund the troops.  Bush and Swift boaters begin running ads in IN-8, IN-9, IL-8, WI-8, PA-6, NC-5, and the other Repub majority districts.  Shuler, Bean, and the other Bush dogs come to you and tell you that they will now vote against the dems.

Solution?

You guys are just sitting around in a big circle jerk and saying "Those dirty dogs."  You just have no ideas of practical politics.  And, from the chess perspective, I have heard no one who can look even 1 move down the move tree.  

Political realism gets you elected. Bob Latta can probably tell you a little about political realism.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:30AM | 0 recs
It's not money for the troops

it's money to continue the occupation.

If Bush vetoes the money then the Democrats should shrug and say it's Bush's problem.

We have a system where the executive branch has to get money from Congress. If the executive branch would rather not have the money than accept the conditions lawfully attached by Congress it's not Congress' problem.

I don't see what's complicated here other than the fact the Democrats don't want to stand up on the issue.

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 11:37AM | 0 recs
OK, Bush vetoes the money

What then?

1) We do not vote more money.

Swift boaters run ads in IN-8, IN-9, IL-8, WI-9 and the other marginal districts.  They come to Pelosi and lay out the FACTS: no money, we lose the next election.

You are Nancy Pelosi.  Your answer?

2) We do vote more money with time limits.  Bush vetoes again.  We do it again.  Bush vetoes again.  We do it again.  Bush vetoes again.  

Solution?

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:40AM | 0 recs
trust the voters to understand

a simple idea.

Congress sent Bush a bill funding the occupation with a timeline to end the occupation.

Bust vetoed the money.

End of story.

Bush is the one who has to compromise or bring the troops home immediately.

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 11:49AM | 0 recs
Carl, you are not being realistic

That is NOT the end of story.  That's the difference between real life and book problems. In a book problem, you solve the problem, and it's end of story.

In real life, you solve the problem, and GUESS WHAT! it's tomorrow and BUSH WANTS THE SAME GODDAM thing again.

It's whack-a-mole every day of the year.  You hit the mole, and BOIING he's up again in the next spot.

This is not a single problem.  The problem will come up, over and over. We cannot SOLVE the problem.  We can address the issue today, and then tomorrow, we must address it again.

Your solutions are 1-time solutions.  What's your long-term continuing strategy?  I see none.

here is mine:

1) Bush will continue the war.  We cannot stop him.

  1. If we try to stop him, he will bombard us with ads, and shift public opinion against us.  ALREADY, the modest successes of the surge have softened opposition.  That's without big ad buys.
  2. We drag our feet, and put out timelines as much as we can.  
  3. WE DO NOT SHUT down the government.  That is a total non-starter.  It didn't work 10 years ago, and it won't work now.
  4. We must get the appropriations bills passed.  This is ABSOLUTELY critical.  Millions of people depend on these bills (I cannot tell you how much trouble this has caused us - we discuss it every week).

The Dems are boxed in. They need support.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 12:05PM | 0 recs
Yup

Exactly correct.

We hold the House with 12 seats.  Of those 12, we are gonna lose 6-7 because the districts will vote their composition.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:41AM | 0 recs
if you're going to give the GOP

everything, what's the point of electing Democrats?

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 11:25AM | 0 recs
Again, you assert

My dad can beat your dad.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:31AM | 0 recs
do you have a point?

or are you just trying to be obnoxious?

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 11:38AM | 0 recs
Nope, just trying to interrupt the

chest thumping.  

Assertiveness and 1.85 still cannot get you a cup of Starbucks.

There is no vision that I can see beyond the end of the nose.  

We have 12 months until Nov 2008.  During that period, we will vote on Iraq 10-15 times.  This give the repukes 10-15 anti-troop votes to write ads about.

You are not a chess player, I'm afraid.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 11:43AM | 0 recs
I explain stuff

You refuse to comprehend.

This isn't chest thumping on my part, but obtuseness on your part.

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 11:50AM | 0 recs
A statement is not an explanation

The statement "Be tough" is not an explanation.  It's just a statement.  It's a strategy.  What does it get you?

by dataguy 2007-12-13 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: A statement is not an explanation

If it's successful, ending the occupation of Iraq.

What does not standing up to Bush/GOP get you?

by Carl Nyberg 2007-12-13 01:26PM | 0 recs
Holding your breath until you turn blue

is not a policy.

Your strategy, sprinkling fairy dust on Bush, is not going to work.

In short, you are 3 tacos short of a 2 taco order.  You are simply in dreamland.  My last comment.

by dataguy 2007-12-13 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Everyone Stop, Take A Deep Breathe and Regain

We could impeach him, but see our efforts to remove him fail in the Senate and have the MSM announce "Democrats Fail"
We could give him a bill that forces withdrawal and watch it get vetoed and watch our efforts to override the veto fail and against hear the MSM announce "Democrats Fail"

instead we get these kinds of headlines:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2 007/12/13/strength/index.html

in the orwellian fashion that says war is peace, you are arguing weakness is strength.

by jello 2007-12-13 05:12PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads