I was right...Will Marshall of PPI/DLC is consultant to freshmen Democrats on Iraq.

[madfloridian]

I wrote about this the other day, how he is advocating playing politics with the war. Some disagreed, but it is right there in black and white in his own words from their website.

Democrats are following Will Marshall's advice about the Iraq surge.

Just a tiny part:

If there is to be a calamitous, Vietnam-style U.S. defeat in Iraq, Karl Rove would probably like nothing better than to goad Democrats into assuming co-responsibility for it. There's no reason to fall into this trap now. So Democrats should speak their minds, hope for the best in Iraq, and be prepared to hold the president accountable if his latest plan fails.

So today I read this. He IS giving them advice, advice to the freshmen Democrats probably per Rahm's instructions. Rahm Emanuel is in charge of messaging.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6414050,00.html

``I don't want to cut off funding. Our troops are performing magnificently,'' Perlmutter said. But he added that a funding debate was premature, and said Republicans were trying to ``trip us up'' by proposing such a measure now, realizing there is ``no consensus on funding'' among Democrats

``What we are trying to achieve as a caucus is unanimity. We're pretty spread out in terms of where we are,'' said another freshman Democrat, Rep. Michael Arcuri of New York. ``We feel that we want to do what is best for the troops, but we have some differences in terms of how you do that.''

Will Marshall of the center-left Democratic Leadership Council has consulted with freshman Democrats on Iraq. He said there is ``broad unity on the fact that we have to start winding the occupation down, not doubling down on it, but after that, I think it's harder to find consensus.''

The dilemma is especially profound for newer members.

``They're in marginal districts, competitive districts, almost by definition, so most of them would be leery of voting to cut off funding for the troops. It would be too easy to be caricatured by the Republicans as turning against the troops in the middle of a mission,'' Marshall said.

They are afraid of how the Republicans will paint them. So instead of standing up, they are standing down.

One more sentence from the article.

Democrats concede that by flexing their muscles to constrain the minority, they risk becoming what they criticized during last year's elections.

Two things. The anti-war group is now the majority. And yes, we risk becoming like them if we continue to let the DLC/PPI/Third Way control our message and our actions.

[wyldwolf]

1. ...well let's take this to it's logical conclusion then...

He IS giving them advice, advice to the freshmen Democrats probably (Madfloridian speculation) per Rahm's instructions. Rahm Emanuel is in charge of messaging.

...and Nancy Pelosi put Emanuel in that position. Sooo... NANCY is actually doing this. Right?

But what is this???




Dean is BEHIND Pelosi... hmmm...

[madfloridian]

2. Dean said he would not say anything that wasn't helpful to ....

the congressional leaders. He said it on CNN. He is chairman of all the party, he will do his job.

The Democrats are apparently going to go along to get along and play politics with our soldiers' lives.

Carville implied the attacks on Dean were ok with Rahm.

You come up with stuff that is not relevant when I post truth.

Call your friends, kill the messenger.

[wyldwolf]

3. uh...so?

Is advice from Marshall being FORCED on the house members?

Do you have any evidence that Emanuel advocates this advice?

With Emanuel being in charge of messaging, wouldn't logic dictate that HE be giving the advice?

And if we are to believe your speculation, it isn't a big leap to also speculate that Pelosi condones the advice.

And, and we're just speculating here, who is to say that if Dean is backing Nancy who is backing Emanuel who is backing Marshall who is giving advice to house members, that isn't helpful to the congressional leaders?

We can make these leaps all day long.

Carville implied something?? Any other day, people on DU call Carville a big liar... but he's honest now to suit your theory?

[madfloridian]

4. Do you not have any shame about playing politics with words...

and about our party playing politics with lives? You have one goal. That goal is to discredit me or anyone else who points out negative about that group.

I posted about Will Marshall and his power in the congress. Instead of denying it, you make it about someone else.

You change the topic rather than confront the truth.

You make it impossible for anyone to post truth about this group.

[wyldwolf]

5. I'm not the one making speculations with subjective words like "probably" and "implied."

When will you face the fact that not everyone feels like you do and that this is a discussion forum. If you don't expect to be disagreed with here, why are you here?

[madfloridian]

9. I used Marshall's own words. I have used Patrick Murphy's own words.

I am willing to take a hit from you guys, but I am tired of this group of so called Democratic consultants advisors think tank heads using all of us for corporate gain.

[wyldwolf]

11. Did Marshall or Murphy said Emanuel "probably" approves?

[Elidor]

22. Let me answer that for you

No. He has no shame.

Happy to provide this public service. :)

[wyldwolf]

23. well, I certainly like fact checking. "Progressives" seem to have a problem with that lately

The OP is riddled with inaccurate framing and assumptions designed to arrive at a preconceived conclusion. Seems to be the new "progressive" way.

[madfloridian]

25. No, you are not telling the truth.

You just make up stuff about me, sling it and hope it sticks.

[madfloridian]

24. Thanks for your public service announcement.

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[bigtree]

6. the article says Marshall consulted with Dems

not Dems sought out Marshall. Hell, I've consulted with Dems. Whether they listened or not is anybody's guess.

You've framed this in an inaccurate way to make it appear that Dems are seeking out his counsel and following it. You provide absolutely NO evidence of this.

The article actually reveals a broad array of views and approaches to Iraq which can't be pigeonholed into your myopic view that Democrats are following some DLC script. That's what you want us to believe isn't it?

[madfloridian]

7. How do you like Marshall's Karl Rove reference. He's afraid of him.

"If there is to be a calamitous, Vietnam-style U.S. defeat in Iraq, Karl Rove would probably like nothing better than to goad Democrats into assuming co-responsibility for it. There's no reason to fall into this trap now. So Democrats should speak their minds, hope for the best in Iraq, and be prepared to hold the president accountable if his latest plan fails."

How does that statement make you feel? He is saying in effect to sort of stand back and let Bush take the blame. Meanwhile, we are overwhelmed in Iraq with our Democrats saying to Pace yes sir you can have your 92,000 more troops, and only 8,000 more. You see, we are willing to give him 100,000.

Think what you may of me. Someone has to say it, and take the hits.

[wyldwolf]

8. Sounds like strategy to me.

[bigtree]

12. I don't give a shit what Marshall says

he's in no position to dictate ANYTHING. He can advise, that's all.

There are more than enough statements from the legislators themselves to parse over.

[madfloridian]

15. I do give a sh** what Marshall says.

And those who pulled us into the war. I have a great concern what they say. I believe our Democrats listened to those groups when we went to war.

I have a very big concern about what he says. I was excited to hear Murphy on Countdown the other night, but I did not watch after he said pray for the troops, and let's send Peter Pace 92,000 more.

Now, bigtree, I am a simple person, not a poltical advisor. But I know BS when I see it, and that is what Marshall is full of.

[bigtree]

16. Marshall isn't in charge of anything except for his mouth

[madfloridian]

10. Will Marshall fears Karl Rove.

"If there is to be a calamitous, Vietnam-style U.S. defeat in Iraq, Karl Rove would probably like nothing better than to goad Democrats into assuming co-responsibility for it. There's no reason to fall into this trap now. So Democrats should speak their minds, hope for the best in Iraq, and be prepared to hold the president accountable if his latest plan fails."

And I find that appalling. Basing our Democratic policy on Iraq on being afraid of Karl Rove.

Go for the jugular, guys.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1151

[wyldwolf]

13. Everyone second guesses Rove when plotting strategy.

[Dr Fate]

14. Good to know that the people who were 100% WRONG about supporting Bush are handing out advice

n/t

[madfloridian]

17. Democrats Alter Plans to restrict Iraq War....giving in to those in red districts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501604_pf.html

Senior House Democrats, seeking to placate members of their party from Republican-leaning districts, are pushing a plan that would place restrictions on President Bush's ability to wage the war in Iraq but would allow him to waive them if he publicly justifies his position.

Under the proposal, Bush would also have to set a date to begin troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government fails to meet benchmarks aimed at stabilizing the country that the president laid out in January.

The plan is an attempt to bridge the differences between anti-war Democrats, led by Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), who have wanted to devise standards of troop readiness strict enough to force Bush to delay some deployments and bring some troops home, and Democrats wary of seeming to place restrictions on the president's role as commander in chief.

The legislative jujitsu in the backrooms of Capitol Hill underscores the difficulties the Democrats face in confronting the issue that helped them regain control of Congress -- Iraq. Democrats passed a resolution in February opposing Bush's deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, but Murtha's proposal to go a step further by restricting deployment to troops deemed to be adequately trained and equipped elicited a fierce response from Republicans, while also dividing the Democratic caucus. The new plan would demand that Bush certify that combat troops meet the military's own standards of readiness, which are routinely ignored. The president could then waive such certifications if doing so is in "the national interest."

Maybe someone should tell them who controls the House. Maybe they still think the Republicans do.

[MH1]

18. Joe Sestak (PA-7) isn't listening to them.

:loveya: Joe!

[madfloridian]

19. From mcjoan at Kos...looks like Progressive caucus might get pushy.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/6/125124/2808

"The progressive Congress outnumbers the Blue Dogs by several dozen, giving them a lot more muscle than the Blue Dogs in this Congress. They also count among their ranks nine House committee leaders and even John Larson of Connecticut, the vice-chair of the Democratic Caucus. Given that they also share the prevailing sentiment of the public on Iraq, it's surprising that they don't have more clout. I suspect that is so because so far they've failed to exercise it.

But with this supplemental vote, that inaction might end. Here's the strategy they're working on is an amendment that would allow financing only to protect American troops in Iraq pending a full withdrawal under a set timetable. The Caucus is discussing whether to vote against the supplemental appropriation unless the House leadership also permits a vote on the amendment,

As one member of the Caucus, Barbara Lee has stressed:

The goal is to shift the discussion to a "fully funded withdrawal" from "cutting off funding."

"There’s a distinction between cutting off funding and using the funding to begin a speedy and secure withdrawal within a specific timeframe," she said.

That's precisely what we need--a fully funded, speedy and secure withdrawal, one that ensures the troops have everything they need to leave safely. It's an intelligent and politically palatable approach. It's encouraging to see the Progressive Caucus emerge in this debate. Particularly since they share a point of view with the majority of the public on Iraq."

Fingers crossed.

[MH1]

21. "speedy and secure withdrawal within a specific timeframe" - Yes.

See my sig.

Ooops, they're turned off.

Here ya go: http://www.setadeadline.com

Have you signed yet? :)

[Jax]

20. The corporate clowns will go down

You said it, the anti war is now the majority.

But the 23 percent dlc losers will always cling to their corporate kiss a** oily bloodbath wars for profit. It is all about them...