This David Obey thing still has me really frosted ......

[Stinky The Clown]

No, I can not and will not defend him in using the term 'Idiot Liberals'. That said, I am not personally bothered by it and I actually can understand the sense of frustration that caused him to say it.

But I will not defend it.

Neither will I condemn or even argue with anyone who disagrees with me.

But, for those of you who *do* condemn him and/or his words - you know who you are; you were out in force just yesterday - what **would** you have him do that he is not doing now?

And before you come in and ask him to 'end the war' or some other such action that can only be accomplish by use of that magic wand he was searching for in the video, look at the man's record. There's lots to look at, dating back to Nineteen Sixty Fucking Nine. In fact, he's one of those who were on the front lines in Congress to end the Viet Nam War and was part of most of the 38 - count 'em - bills it took Congress to wrest control from Nixon.

If you want to have a look at the Old Lions among the liberals - and more specifically, the 'anti war crowd' - serving in Congress today, you would see David Obey right up there with John Conyers and Edward Moore Kennedy.

So .... for those of you who called for his balls on a platter yesterday, apart from your outrage at his words, what ELSE would YOU have the man do?

Be specific.

[Monkeyman]

1. Your Right I just wish we had the votes

[azmesa207]

17. Idiot Liberals

First I consider myself a liberal and second there are some liberals that are Idiots .

[mitchtv]

2. He apparently apologized

that's good enough for me. I like him, but what kind of asshole talks like that to the base?

[ClassWarrior]

5. A frustrated one?

:shrug:

A little Progressive empathy here?

NGU.

[bigtree]

3. Are we completely sure the protesters haven't been disrespectful as well?

I've taken some undeserved licks for defending the process . . .

Obey's a hard worker. He happened to be caught on camera DEFENDING himself with the unfortunate phrase. He's apologized. She's accepted. Time to move on.

[Gman]

4. Obey has absolutely nothing to apologize for

He was around fighting the good fight before 75% of the people here on DU were even born. He has nothing to explain or defend. His frustration is understandable with those that think the creation began when they began politically aware and don't have the patience, much less the wisdom to defer to someone that's been there and fought fights they haven't even thought about.

[madfloridian]

6. Now there is an opening to bash the "newly politically aware."

Hot Damn.

You guys don't quit.

[Gman]

22. If you want to consider it bashing, that's your opinion

It gets frustrating when people who haven't been around decide they have all the answers and have no clue why it's not as easy as they would like to think it is.

[madfloridian]

23. People who haven't been around what? Around what? We knew the war was a lie.

We knew it. They did not read the intelligence. They could have. They did not.

Been around what? The illustrious halls of congress that sent us to war on lies?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1171

I was called a traitor here yesterday. I was called stupid in another thread. Today the word "simplistic" is used.

But I damn sure knew the war was wrong. I was right, they were wrong.

[noamnety]

7. How about vote against the supplemental?

If "we vote for the supplemental, I believe we own the war.”

-- Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

“A vote for the supplemental is a vote to reauthorize the war all over again.”

-- Kucinich

[bigtree]

8. Just voting against the supplemental doesn't direct Bush to do ANYTHING

At some point he has to be presented with a direct rebuke of his false authority. Directing him through the funding he claims he needs is an effective way to challenge him to sign on to the restrictions in the bill by forcing him to decide between funding the troops or rejecting the funding for the troops, effectively putting the onus on Bush for 'supporting the troops'. Also, the bill is loaded with other measures the republicans say they want, like Katrina aid . . .

[noamnety]

9. two problems with that.

First, the assumption that they can direct his actions by funding his actions. Sorry, wrong answer.

In the Campbell v. Clinton case 17 Member of Congress, including Kucinich, sued President Bill Clinton for unconstitutionally attacking Serbia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority from Congress. A war declaration by Congress is required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution.

The Court ruled in favor of the Administration because it could find no constitutional impasse existed between the Legislative and the Executive branch requiring judicial intervention. Congress had appropriated funds for the war and therefore chose not to remove U.S. forces. The significance of this case is that the court ruled the only way for Congress to end a war is to cut off funding.

“Congress can debate and pass legislation for redeployment, phased redeployment, a resolution to end the war or a non-binding resolution disapproving of the troop surge. But none of this will have any legal effect. Each and every time Congress voted for a supplemental bill, they voted to reauthorize the war all over again,” Kucinich said.

(snip)

“The Administration does not have to pay any attention to Congress’ attempt to guide the war. Once Congress gave its consent for military action, it did not have the authority to steer the conduct of the war. Now, the only option Congress has to end the war is to withdraw approval for the war through a cut off of funds,” Kucinich said.
“The Campbell case makes it obvious that as long as Congress continues to fund the war, it cannot simultaneously argue that it’s being usurped with respect to the war powers.

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=59427

Second, the idea that it's okay to kill Iraqi civilians - if, in exchange for that, we get Katrina aid. That's a disgusting premise.

[Sparkly]

12. There aren't the votes to pass that. So the question remains:

What do you want Obey to do?

[noamnety]

14. "there aren't enough votes" is a bs excuse, imho

"I know lynching is wrong. But I voted to fund it, because all those other folks were gonna vote to fund it anyway."

[Sparkly]

15. Not an accurate analogy.

There will be funding. This bill attaches it to other requirements designed to force withdrawal.

[noamnety]

18. Funding the war in no way forces a withdrawal

You don't end a war by funding its continuation, and all the political talking points and spin in the world isn't going to change the court's opinion on that. Anyone who believes the additional funding will successfully result in Bush ending the war is mistaken.

Please reread the excerpt I posted above for an explanation of that point.

A number of people here seem completely unfamiliar with The Occupation Project, and its goals - and sponsors. They seem shocked (SHOCKED, I TELL YOU) to find out the democrats aren't getting a free pass on funding the war. SHOCKED that any anti-war activists would have the gall to hold a democrat responsible for their own part in continuing the war. The sponsors are the main voices within the anti-war movement, and without those voices, the earliest and loudest dissenters, it's possible the republicans would have won a lot more seats this last election.

Sponsors of The Occupation Project (that thing where they are occupying congressional offices)

Veterans For Peace
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
North Carolina Peace Action
United for Peace and Justice
The Declaration of Peace
Bloomington Peace Action Coalition
Northwest Ohio Peace Coalition
CODEPINK
After Downing Street
Voters for Peace
International Solidarity Movement - Chicago Chapter
The Collateral Repair Project -- Seattle
Texans for Peace
Alaska Peace Center
North Star Veterans for Peace - Fairbanks, Alaska
Women in Black -- Seattle
Stand Up Seattle
Green Party of Washington State
North Alabama Committee for Nonviolent Action
Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution
National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance
Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the Iraq War
New Hampshire Peace Action

It's a nonpartisan group of activists, and no, people don't get a pass just because they have a D after their name.
http://vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_occupation_project.vp.html
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?list=type&type=192

[Sparkly]

20. That's fine, but defunding isn't going to happen.

There just aren't the votes.

"Anyone who believes the additional funding will successfully result in Bush ending the war is mistaken." I haven't heard anyone say that, have you?

Here is an outline of the strategy for using the supplemental, from Obey's website:
http://obey.house.gov/HoR/WI07/Newsroom/Press+Releases/DemocraticLeadersAnnounceIraqandVeteransProposal.htm

It might not get anywhere, but neither will a futile effort to get enough votes to cut off all funding.

[noamnety]

21. I'm telling you what the COURT has said.

The only way for Congress to end a war is to cut off funding.

"There aren't enough votes" doesn't excuse his own wrong vote.

"The bill grants the President the authority to depart from his own military’s guidelines- all he has to do is give himself a waiver and face the country with a report explaining why." = The president will do whatever he damn well wants, as he always has, and will have some bullshit speech declaring that he's listened to the concerns yada yada yada and he is doing what's best yada yada yada 911 yada yada yada.

"meaningful and substantial progress" is a completely empty phrase.

Like I said, voting FOR a lynching because not enough people will vote against it is disgusting. And what we are doing in Iraq is no better than lynching people.

[Sparkly]

24. And I'm telling you the votes aren't there.

This may do nothing, as I said; but Obey voting a simple "no" on a straight supplemental won't do anything either.

The "depart from military guidelines" concerned the points above that paragraph (unit readiness, length of time in Iraq and at home). The bill also calls for redeployment:

* By July 1st, 2007 the President must certify that Iraq is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqi factions. If he does not certify - troops must begin immediate redeployment and U.S. troop involvement in the Iraq civil war must be completed by December 2007 (180 days).
* By October 1st, the President must certify that Iraqis have achieved key benchmarks. If he does not make the second certification, troops must begin immediate redeployment to be completed by March of 2008 (180 days).
* Even if he makes both certifications, the Administration must start redeploying the U.S. Military from Iraq by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by August of 2008 (180 days).

I'm not saying this will work; I'm not even saying it's the best way to go. But the options are few when not enough representatives are on board, and when the presidential cabal is *this* one. There's plenty of frustration and alternative views about the "how" among people who agree on the "what." Obey is doing what he thinks best, and he's certainly not working to keep the war going as it is.

[Tellurian]

32. Obey is up against the same thing we are on DU..

There are some, that because they wish it to happen immediately on their say so, chose not to understand why we can't get it done right now. I guess the kindest word to use for them is 'The Instant Gratification Crowd' won't take not now for an answer. So, they continue to whine and stamp their feet and blame everyone else for our problems and they've chosen the moderates as their whipping post.

[zulchzulu]

28. It's obvious you don't understand the bill, as Obey alluded to in the video

The supplemental section only funds armor, VA funds and other benefits and there are also sections that make the IWR dissolved, hence making the war illegal and authority taken away. That's the very boiled down version.

I am VERY against the Wars. But I also pay attention to how congressional procedures work. Short of a coup d'etat and revolution, we have to deal with the incremental process. And that goes the same way with impeachment, which I am VERY MUCH for.

I would advise you and whoever to put pressure on the people who want to continue the war, not the ones who are trying to stop it within congressional constraints.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Very well said.

NGU.

[zulchzulu]

26. How do you pass bills in Congress without votes? This I gotta see...

Please tell me. Perhaps I don't know something about the rudimentary, basic detail of democracy.

If someone in Congress authors a bill and tries to get people to vote for it to get it to pass, is there something else that replaces votes in order to pass the bill? Tickets to the Lesh show? Snorkling vacation in Costa Rica? What?

[noamnety]

29. You PRESSURE the elected "representatives" so you GET the votes.

My own decision-allergic Congressman, who I will out here in a national venue, David Price, is now blathering about "exit strategy" (a think tank term if ever there was one) to avoid the issue of defunding the war. But he is on the defensive, as he was when 400 of us encamped in front of his office - with others inside, refusing to leave - to (successfully) pressure him to vote against the 2002 authorization for war (which he now proudly slaps on his website's front page. (Of course, he has voted every time since then to re-fund the war... Price is deep-down DLC).

My point? We did turn him on a vote, and it was civil disobedience - a 26-hour sit-in at his Chapel Hill office in October 2002 - that did the trick.

There is something about being polite when the blood is running down the gutters that should strike us all as obscene... sinful even.

Who qualifies for Congressional office occupations? Anyone and everyone who still votes money for the war. Period. Take great big signs along that explain a very simple thing: An exit is a command, not a strategy. And take vets and military family members with you. Call us, and we'll go there so when the police show up to trespass us, you can videotape vets and military families being dragged out of Congressional offices in flex-cuffs. It's an irresistable image.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-goff/occupations-to-stop-the-o_b_39882.html

The democrats have 233 seats in the house. The supplemental WON'T pass, unless the democrats WANT to continue the war. In other words, it will pass.

And the empty rhetoric attached to the bill will accomplish nothing, but it sure looks nice on paper.

And a year from now, the troops will still be there, and we won't have made any progress.

And people call ME the idiot.

[zulchzulu]

30. OK...how do you pressure them to vote...when they don't want to...

I would love to see 233 votes for the supplemental...but...perhaps targeting those that would vote against it (like Kucinich) might make sense...no?

As for legislation, the Constitution looks nice on paper too.

Tell me a verifiable, worthy plan that WOULD PASS in the Congress that stops all funding, makes the troops leave immediately and then what... you don't just wave some poster board you bought at Walgreens with "Stop The War Now" in magic marker at the members of congress and expect ANYTHING to get done.

It's a tad more complicated than that.

[noamnety]

33. Please reread previous post, It answered your question. (nt)

[zulchzulu]

25. Did Kucinich really say that?

No wonder he's in the basement in the polls. What a lout. Does the guy read?

[Monkeyman]

10. Start Targeting the Republicans get then on tape I am tired of seeing them use this

[Bjorn Against]

11. I simply do not want him calling a mother who is trying to protect her son a "liberal idiot"...

I think the guy's record in Congress has been quite good for the most part, but he stepped way over the line when he attacked a woman whose son's life is in serious danger. I know he now realizes that and he has apologized so I wish I could leave it at that and let it go. The problem is that there have been too many people here that are defending him and suggesting it was perfectly appropriate for him to attack this woman who was only trying to find help for her son.

If this were just about Obey I would accept his apology and move on, but as long as people are slamming on a mother who was politely asking for help I feel the need to defend that mother(and she WAS polite, she did not raise her voice once in that video even when she was being yelled at).

[Stinky The Clown]

13. It is now being said he didn't call her an "idiot liberal" .......

..... as someone pointed out here, with specific reference to the You Tube video, including the time mark.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3153949#3154906

According to this transcript, he said ".... it's time THESE idiot liberals understand that ...." not "YOU idiot liberals".

Putting this in some context, there was that 'occupy the good guys' offices' action going on both in DC and in home districts for the better part of the week. Surely Obey knew his office back home had been occupied. It isn't clear to me if he saw this woman as a part of that group, but it IS clear he didn't call *her* an idiot liberal.

ON EDIT:::::

I just went back and listened to this **again**. He said, clearly, '.... these idiot liberals .....' at a point in the dicussin **before** there was any yelling. He said it and **she** responded to him in an equally calm way as the way in which he used the term. In short, she seemed to **agree** with his charaterization, or at least to not take issue with it.

PLEASE go back and listen to this again ..... just after the 4 minute mark. It changes **everything**.

PLEASE listen to this.

[Bjorn Against]

16. To me it seemed that Obey's words implied that she was part of the group of "these idiot liberals"

I have watched the video and I know what he said, as I saw it the words "these idiot liberals" meant exactly the same thing as "you idiot liberals" would have.

Come on, Obey has even realized his words were wrong and he has apologized. I accept his apology, I just wish other people could agree with Obey that he did not handle this one well. I have seen far too many posts suggesting that this woman was an idiot though, and I am going to defend her because I don't think she did anything wrong.

Honestly, lets admit that Obey's were wrong but accept his apology for those words and move on. I am not going to go after Obey anymore unless he makes another stupid comment, I will however continue to go after people who defend his stupid comments because it is never right to attack a mother whose son's life is in jeopardy simply because she talked to a member of Congress.

It is not about Obey anymore, he has apologized. Now it is up to those who continue to defend him to realize that Obey was right on one thing, he was right to admit that he did not react well at all and he was right to apologize.

[anitar1]

19. Thanks, Husb 2 Sparkly.

I will not trash Obey and I understand his frustration. People need to educate themselves and read the resolutions throughly.

[LittleClarkie]

27. And you're not even from Wisconsin

I appreciate your sensitivity.

I missed this ruckus yesterday. Not to sure I'm sorry, either.

[DeepModem Mom]

34. Thank you -- K&R.

[mmonk]

35. I've criticized him harshly and without apology or regret.

Does that mean I want him to lose his seat or resign? No. I'm tired of anyone who wants this abomination of a war that transgresses all America is supposed to stand for being called "idiot liberals", aiding the enemy, "extreme" left, etc. I'm damn tired of the whole web of lies and hate speech that accompanies it and all the blatant cowardice that keeps it and the bush crimes from being addressed. So get used to some of us and our reactions. We will not "shut up and sing".

[Stinky The Clown]

36. So ..... if I read your post right .....

.... and I'm not sure I do ....... Obey is a warmonger?

And just to note ..... the OP question was 'what, specifically, would you have him do?'