LA TIMES: Democrats feel liberals' antiwar heat

[laststeamtrain]

Democrats feel liberals' antiwar heat
Freshman and veteran lawmakers alike risk the ire of bloggers and other activists if they waver on an Iraq exit.

By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
January 10, 2007

WASHINGTON — It did not take long for Rep. Nancy Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Kansas, to learn the price of defying her party's liberal base. After she said she would support President Bush if he proposed an increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq, antiwar bloggers fumed and MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group, considered running a television ad attacking her.

"If a member of Congress is wrong on Iraq, that is not what we voted for," said Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington director. "There will be people watching to make sure they do the right thing."

That kind of political pressure is already being applied, not just to junior lawmakers, but also to Democratic leaders. It prodded them into making Iraq more central to their first 100 hours in control of Capitol Hill than they had planned. And it is creating tension between many Democrats and the liberal activists who will be increasingly important as the 2008 presidential campaign gets into gear.

Antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, demanding a troop withdrawal, disrupted House Democratic leaders at their first-day news conference on ethics. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada was deluged with complaints when he appeared to be open to a troop increase and posted a notice on a liberal blog to explain that he was misunderstood. Dozens of demonstrators rallied outside a Washington think tank when Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) spoke in support of a troop escalation.

Antiwar activists, who believe that Democrats owe their 2006 election victories to voter discontent with the Iraq war, are thrilled that most congressional Democrats oppose Bush's proposed troop increase. But lawmakers are divided over how far to go in fighting the plan, and activists worry that the party will not have the political stamina to block the escalation and, beyond that, force a withdrawal of all troops.

<more>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-antiwar10jan10,0,580923.story?coll=la-home-nation

[OneBlueSky]

1. being against this war is not a "liberal position" . . . it's just common sense . . . n/t

.

[EST]

2. True, but an understandable misapplication, given that liberals

appear to be the only ones in possession of common sense, these days.

[BayCityProgressive]

3. they aren't feeling

the ire of liberals, they are feeling th eire of the vast majority of Americans. Nice way to frame th enews though. Gotta get their military shilling in.

[rodeodance]

4. feel it to your BRAINS-all you Dem congresscritters

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

5. ALready the attack begins

by subtly portraying the Democratic Party as being split. Divide and conquer is the tactic. I think most (if not all ) Democrats would agree the war is WRONG! I would expect every Democratic representative to reflect that. Only the Media and the GOP believes otherwise.

[bearfan454]

6. And well they should. nt

[arikara]

7. Considering that a whopping 12% favour escalation...

that would mean that only 88% of Americans are liberal.

[aquart]

8. Implying that liberals are not the real Democrats. Cute. Very cute.

[closeupready]

9. I know. I caught that, too.

How transparent of them.

[DearAbby]

10. 70% of America is Liberal?

I don't think so...they better be keeping the finger on the pulse. The majority of the country, are against any type of escalation. Not just liberals.

These war-mongering kooks need to stick to the sidelines.
We the people, have spoken. They better be listening