Blue Dogs say they represent the majority, but they don't want to "play general" with the war.

[madfloridian]

First, here is a poll on blocking escalation of the war and getting the troops out.

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush's plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?

Support: 58 percent
Oppose: 39 percent
Unknown: 4 percent

Wow, that's pretty high support, so I guess that means the Blue Dogs agree.

Here is what Allen Boyd, a Blue Dog leader boasts:

"We think this is the group that represents where the greatest bloc of Americans are -- toward that big middle. Not far left, not far right, but that big middle, that's going to be able to get things done," he added. "And it's going to have to be done on a bipartisan basis."

That sounds good except it is not true.

"Iraq is a good example," Boyd said. "The majority of the caucus would say, 'Let's be really strong in forcing the president out of here.' Well, some of us are really uncomfortable playing general, and you're going to see that reflected in what we vote on."

So they say they represent the majority, the really big center, but they don't like what the majority says. So they won't do it.

That is from MyDD:

Blue Dogs Own The War Now, Too

While the Blue Dog group gets more attention, it is smaller than the progressive Out of Iraq caucus. They are working on something of their own.

Liberal House Dems to unveil new approach.

We write to share our thoughts with you about Congressional action regarding the ongoing occupation of Iraq and to make the case for fully funding the safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq over a clear timeline.

By framing their discussion of the war in terms of winning and losing, the Bush administration seeks to portray critics of their policies as opposed to victory, or supportive of defeat.

The fact is that you cannot "win" an occupation, just as there is no way for the United States to "win" an Iraqi civil war.

...."Congress is going to have to act decisively to end this occupation and to bring troops home. Bush has bet his legacy on an unnecessary war that his administration has botched at every turn. His escalation plan is a plan to pass the buck. If anyone thinks that it will be easy for the next President, even a Democrat, to quickly extricate our nation from the mess Bush has made, he or she is just wrong. Congress is going to have to act, either sooner or later.

One group is being honest and clear, the other is not.

[MissWaverly]

1. this war is inflaming the entire middle east

instead of 27 million, we will be facing opposition from 121 million people, sounds like
another fiasco to me.

[madfloridian]

2. Why would they object to language about Bush and Iran?

It appears the Blue Dog group does not want language saying Bush needs to come to congress to attack Iran. Why should that bother them?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/10/AR2007031001300_pf.html

Nadler's conversion was a sign of the member-by-member, slow but deliberate headway Democratic leaders say they are making in their efforts to cobble together the 218 supporters they need to pass one of the most consequential pieces of defense legislation in decades, a $105 billion war-funding bill that would impose strict standards of rest and readiness for the military, establish clear benchmarks for the government of Iraq and set a timeline to end U.S. involvement in the war.

Through closed-door meetings, pep rallies, private phone conversations and horse trading, Democratic leaders are moving outward from the 180 solid votes in the party's political center to win the votes on the party's left and right that will be needed to pass the bill later this month.

For Nadler's vote, it meant a provision for enforcement. For the backing of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), it was language prohibiting an attack on Iran without congressional authorization. For the support of Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a National Guardsman who trained troops for Iraq, it was the inclusion of a waiver that the president could invoke to get around strict standards of troop readiness. The cajoling will continue tomorrow as lawmakers return to Washington and the legislation is readied for markup later in the week. But there are roadblocks: Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said some conservatives are withholding their support until the language McDermott wanted is removed.

As Democratic leaders balance those demands, the calculus is fairly straightforward, said one conservative Democrat involved in the process. Leaders are counting on winning all but a dozen of the 43 conservative Blue Dog Democrats and all but a dozen of the 75 or so members of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus. Then, Democratic leaders are hoping, enough Republicans will break ranks to put them over the top.

[madfloridian]

3. I'm gathering the conservative Democrats won this debate. From MyDD

Chris has apparently been working with the progressive caucus on this. He seems resigned. I guess I'm weird , but I thought when you had about 30 more seats in the House than the other party that you could do as you wanted.

But I must have been wrong. I guess a compromise is better than nothing when you have a lot of the majority not wanting to "play generals" with the war.

Chris refers to the WP article I posted above.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/11/205814/155#commenttop

"A meeting in Pelosi's office Thursday stretched from 1:30 to 4 p.m., as 35 to 40 Democratic liberals hashed over the legislation with Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).

Miller's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

That night, Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member, joined other liberals for a meeting in a basement room of the Capitol. With the zeal of the converted, Hinchey told his colleagues, "If we cannot pass a bill like this, the alternative is far worse, a straightforward 'Here's the money, Mr. President, spend it any way you want.' "

"This solution is not perfect," he said he told the group. "But it's a hell of a lot better than anything else we can get."

Chris adds some of his own comments, sounds rather discouraged. I know how he feels.

Right now, my main concern is that George Miller is actually correct in his assessment of future moves. If, upon the defeat of this bill, a supplemental without any strings attached will easily pass through the House, then I have serious concerns over the leadership's willingness to even fight for this compromise bill once it is either vetoed or defeated via filibuster in the Senate. One of those things will almost certainly take place, and so if progressives are willing to compromise in order to get this bill through the House, then the leadership better be willing to stand behind this compromise. If, instead, it turns out that progressives have been placed in the position of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football on this one, don't expect as many of us to get behind a compromise like this next time around. I am not particularly energetic to fight for Democrats who don't fight for themselves. The House leadership better be ready to go to the mat.

I just read the Salcn article about Bush sending sick and wounded back to Iraq now. Some so injured they can not wear their armor. I guess he is daring us. Well, he wins, I guess.

The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq

This is more like Vietnam all the time...they say if we stay a little longer we might win. And both sides appear to be playing politics with lives.

This is just like it was before the war. The centrist groups are going to do just what they want, threaten the progressives, and shove us out of the way.....and give in to the Republicans again.

But then I am just an activist and not very bright liberal who thinks of herself as moderate.

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[madfloridian]

4. I was right.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

5. Update: Clyburn lets conservative Dens "vote conscience", but whips progressives into shape.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/13/215741/945

"House Democratic leaders will not whip the Iraq supplemental spending bill, on grounds they don't want to apply political pressure on a matter of war and peace.

"It's a conscience vote," House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said after yesterday's Democratic Caucus meeting. But he added his office had begun to "survey" members now that more are looking at the 170-page bill.

"Have we got the 218 votes to pass it? I don't know," Clyburn said."

But here's the way the House Leadership whipped the Progressives into shape.

A meeting in Pelosi's office Thursday stretched from 1:30 to 4 p.m., as 35 to 40 Democratic liberals hashed over the legislation with Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.).

Miller's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

A threat to the progressive caucus, but the 17 conservative Dems who don't want to vote for getting out of Iraq because of conscience are ok. Blue Dogs and New Dems can vote "conscience", but if progressives do it they get lectured about helping the enemy.