The Democrats Want the Peace Movement to Work for Them

[proud2BlibKansan]

The Democrats Want the Peace Movement to Work for Them

Written by Kevin Zeese
Saturday, 03 March 2007
The Peace Movement Needs to Demand the Democrats End the War


Rep. Chris Van Hollen is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It is his job to preserve and expand the Democrats majority in Congress in 2008. Rep. Van Hollen is also my congressman. So, this week when he held a town hall meeting I was paying close attention to his message on the Iraq War.



From his talk it is quite clear what the Democrats want. They want the peace movement to work for the Democratic Party rather than the Democratic Party representing the peace movement.



At the meeting there were signs held in the audience urging “use the power of the purse to end the war” and “support vets not war” and people in the audience held “defund the war” signs. A mother of a vet, Tina Richards, whose son is getting ready to return for his third tour of duty in Iraq, read a poem by her son that explained why he works for peace and described his despair, his thoughts of suicide and the horrors he saw in Iraq. (See this powerful poem below with link to her website.) When she urged a cut-off of funds the audience of several hundred cheered wildly.



But, Rep. Van Hollen, who is the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did not commit to not voting to fund the war. Instead he pointed to the recent non-binding resolution passed by the House opposing the “surge” as a first step. He highlighted how the Republicans blocked even a vote on that in the Senate. He reminded people that he opposed the war and voted against the use of force resolution. (But, he didn’t mention how he has voted for all of the $420 billion in funding for the war.) He concluded to end the war we need to build a political movement because we could not stop the war with the current Democratic majorities in Congress.



The Democrats seem to think the Iraq War is the “goose that lays the golden votes.” They hope it is the golden goose that will expand their majorities and bring them the presidency.

more . . .
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/806/151/

[yurbud]

1. kick. Ending the war should have been the first hundred days.

I hope they aren't so cynical as to "milk" the war the way the GOP has milked abortion for decades.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Amen

I was pretty disappointed they didn't include the war in their 100 day agenda.

[MadHound]

2. And people around here wonder why those of us in the anti-war movement

Fail to fall in behind candidates like Hillary and the like. We want to see some actual results, binding resolutions, votes. Instead, we are told in a high handed manner that we can take our vote elsewhere:grr:

Whatever happened to the concept of earning the public's vote? Instead, it is automatically assumed that we on the anti-war left will vote for the Democrats, no matter what the candidates say or do. Sorry, but the time for such assumptions is past. You want our vote, you have to walk the walk. The only consistent candidate who has come out steadfastly against the war, time and again when it mattered was Kucinich. Obama has stated that he is steadfastly against the war also, but he wasn't around during the crunch time, and thus hasn't had to have his vote put to the test. Kucinich is the only one who has walked through the fire and came out whole.

The party needs to take heed. If they throw some war hawk like Hillary into the fray come November, they will lose. The anti-war vote, which they're taking for granted, will do one of two things, either vote third party or stay home in droves. And there is enough people like this to throw the election one way or the other. Something that the party should seriously be thinking about rather than simply trying to bully us into line, or taking our vote fro granted.

[LWolf]

7. You said it.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

3. It's why I send my support to individual candidates

and no longer to the DCCC or DSCC. That way I still support democrats, but not the political analysts and strategists put into power by the DLC.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Same here

[KG]

4. some are still living with the dellusion that the dem party is anti-war

[genie_weenie]

8. Ooh-Rah.

I wonder why this is getting little response?

[MadHound]

10. The naked, unvarnished truth has that effect sometimes

Leaves people stunned and silent.

[yurbud]

12. cognitive dissonance--people refuse to believe they are being played by leaders who are supposed to

look out for them.

[Robbien]

9. Yes. Peace has no place in the Democratic Party except perhaps

at the kiddie table.

Peace patriots are supposed to give to the DC Dems and vote for the DC Dems, but are not supposed to speak unless spoken to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Politicians don't lead, they follow.

They follow the money, the polls, and the voters.

They have to be shoved, kicked, pushed, threatened, and made extremely uncomfortable to get them to do anything that involves the slightest risk.

In short, politicians get elected so they can be reelected and they're going to take the easiest and "safest" route to do so.

[MadHound]

13. And it is the first factor in that group that exerts the most influence

Money

What many people in the Democratic party and elsewhere have a hard time believing is that the same folks who are funding Republicans to unleash the dogs of war also fund the Dem candidates. They figure why take a chance when we can play both sides of the aisle. And being that money is generally the decisive factor in winning an election these days(sad as that is), Democratic candidates wind up caring more about what their corporate masters want than what the voters actually want.

The voters sent a message last fall that could be heard across the country, get us the hell out of Iraq. Yet as we see, the Dems are barely moving forward on this issue. We've gotten a non-binding resolution through one half of Congress, and now it is stalled and will die a quiet death. What does this bode for more serious measures to be taken to stop the war? Will there be more serious measures taken to stop the war? Several prominent Dems are saying no to both impeachment and to defunding the war. And while the voter's will is ignored, more blood is spilled, more lives destroyed. How sickening.

And Hillary all but said that she doesn't give a damn about the anti-war left, telling us that we could go elsewhere. And sadly it seems that she is corporate darling, already annointed for her date with the nomination. We'll see though, if she gets pulled down for a genuine anti war candidate, will the party finally pay attention? I certainly hope so.

[porphyrian]

14. When they bring peace, they can join the peace movement. - n/t

[rucky]

15. Here's a bone, now be a good doggie.

"we could not stop the war with the current Democratic majorities in Congress"

What do you think got the Dems majority in the first place? What does the DCCC want, anyways? For the peace movement to stop bothering them because they introed a nonbinding resolution?

"He highlighted how the Republicans blocked even a vote on that in the Senate."

I smell a good cop/bad cop routine. Just enough theater to quell the masses.

[MadHound]

16. You're correct, and meanwhile the war will grind on, as the Dems throw up their hands

And declare that their majorities are helpless. And come October next year, the party's bully boys will come out in force to beat the anti-war left into line. Lines like "who else are you going to vote for?" and " a vote for third party, or no vote at all is a vote for the Republicans" and other such sophmoric drivel.

This war is going to continue to play out for as long as the corporations and their governmental lackies feel that they can away with it without having a revolt on their hands, much like Vietnam did. Sounds to me like we need to show the power of people, a mass protest, a general strike. For it is becoming increasingly obvious that playing the usual political games isn't going to achieve a goddamn thing.

[madfloridian]

17. Here is their policy...from the PPI/DLC...Will Marshall.

They are playing political games, I fear.

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

Here is just part of what Marshall said, raise your hand if you feel the heartwarming sympathy for the troops.

"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."

I get jumped when I post about how this group is setting our policy, but it is exactly what we are doing.

[MadHound]

18. Yep, the many in the Democratic party are entirely too worried about appearances

And who is going to get the blame for this mess, rather than concentrating on simply ending it. I can forsee a scenario where the Democratic nominee will mouth pious platitudes about ending the war at some unspecified time, yet failing to do so once in the Presidency, for they would hate to get the blame, or be percieved as "soft on terra". And the war will grind on for four more years:eyes:

[bigtree]

19. Bullshit

another one of those blame Democrats first articles. Ridiculous conclusion to suppose that we on the outside care more about these issues than those who we tasked with moving the concerns through the legislature. Another 'nobody cares as much as me' complaints. Crock of shit. I don't doubt that there are corrupt politicians, even some Democrats among them. But, the majority of these legislators care deeply about the issues they represent.

I'd like this author to walk up to Jim Webb and tell him he doesn't care about his son in Iraq and is just there to 'get elected and win the White House'.

[MadHound]

20. So why is it, with a mandate given by the people, the Democratic party has failed

To push through even a non-binding resolution through Congress, much less anything of substance? And don't give me that crock about not having enough people to break a filibuster, remember the nuclear option? Yeah, we could use that, but apparently are afraid to. Then again, Pelosi took impeachment and defunding the war off the table even before she took the Speaker's seat. So what are we left with?

Meanwhile, if the anti-war crowd dares to criticize the party for failure to do a goddamn thing, out come the bully boys to try and beat everybody in line. Lines like "who else ya gonna vote for" start to fly. Hell, even Hillary, the annointed one, has basically slapped the anti war left, stating that we could vote for somebody else. Yet, when and if she wins, she will fully expect us to fall in line and vote for her come November. Sorry to say this, but if she gets the nod, she's going to be in for a rude awakening.

Whether you like it or not, the anti-war crowd has been basically ignored. Pious platitudes are spoken come election time, but when push comes to shove, Dem politicians, like 'Pug politicians pay more attention to what their money men are saying than what their constituents are saying. After all, that's how we got into this damn mess to begin with. The overwhelming majority of Americans didn't want the IWR vote, yet they went ahead with it anyway, and many, many Dems voted for war, going directly against what their constituents wanted. Sure, there are a few, very few good ones, Webb and Kucinich, and Feingold come to mind. But other than those, and perhaps a few others, the rest of the bunch, both Dem and 'Pug will do what the money says, not what their constituents say. That is the simple fact, one that has been true for a long time now. You may not like it, but there it still is.

One very huge reason why we need publicly financed election campaigns, to take money out of the election equation.

[bigtree]

21. I explained it in detail. They can either argue or compromise

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3146696&mesg_id=3146696

Right now, our leadership is working to get a proposal which will have the widest margin of support. The alternative (in the Senate) is an endless argument.

The 'anti-war' crowd doesn't have any more of a guaranteed formula for a legislative rebuke to Bush than the leadership does. You mention Webb and Kucinich, and Feingold. Each of their withdrawal proposals has a component which would require a vote in their respective body. The balance of power won't allow their proposals to succeed with Democrats alone, even if we were totally unified. That's the reality which is reflected in the leadership efforts for consensus so far. Don't expect this to last long, though. Once they can legislatively demonstrate that Bush is willingly and wantonly ignoring their legislative rebukes and directions, there should be more than enough voices, on both sides, calling for Bush to be reigned in.

Just because they're not showing us their entire hand doesn't mean they've relented from their original mission. There are members of Congress who just hate the president and wish him prosecuted and in jail yesterday. I know this personally. Unfortunately, they have a less than strong hand. They are proceeding carefully because they want to win, not just vent.

[MadHound]

22. And while they blather and bloviate and creep towards consensus,

Thousands continue to die. Sorry, but that makes matter all the more urgent. We've already had two of our major options, impeachment and defunding taken off the table by the Dems themselves. Sorry, but it is actions like this that fills those of us in the anti-war left with much less than hope.

And while I realize that it has been a short time since the Dems got into office, the urgency of the situation propels us to strive for an end ASAP. Rather than doing the domestic issues in the "first hundred hours" stint, Pelosi and the Democrats should have started hammering on the war immediately. In fact that should be the only issue on the table until it is ended. The American people put the Democrats in place to achieve just that end, and frankly if the Dems don't bring home that particular piece of bacon, they're going to be gone in '08.

We on the anti-war left are willing to be patient, but not for long. Come June, July, we had better start seeing some serious progress on ending the war, and certainly before the election next year. Otherwise you can count us out of the Democratic coalition. The party has taken us for granted for far too long, if they continue to do so, we'll simply walk, and see how well the party does without us.

It is that simple.

[bigtree]

23. They would still be dying if the anti-war folks were themselves elected

in the same ineffective numbers. Again, you assume that Democrats are the obstructionists. Republicans are the ones blocking the legislative efforts so far. Republicans threaten to block all of the more strident proposal which have been announced and will likely do just that when they appear for a vote as an amendment or a direct bill.

"Hear me!" as Bob Byrd says, "They would still be dying if the anti-war folks were themselves elected in the same ineffectual numbers."

[MadHound]

24. I fully realize that the Republicans are being obstrutionists

However that doens't render the Dems impotent or powerless. Gee, they could actually hold up the war funding bills in committee until a withdrawl timetable was worked out, now couldn't they? Whoops, I forgot, Pelosi took that one off the table. They could start impeachment hearings based on Bush's handling of the war, and start negotiating with him from a position of strength. Whoops, Pelosi took that one off the table too. Gee, what are we left with then, non-binding resolutions that mean little and go nowhere:eyes:

Goddamn it, haven't the Dems learned how to get down in the trenches and fight? After all, they've had a prime example in front of them for the past thirteen years, they should have learned something. Instead, they take their two most powerful options off the table, and instead try to stop this war with a hand tied behind their back and their head stuck up their ass.

I, and other Americans are willing to give the Democrats time. But that patience isn't unlimited, and the Democrats should not take it for granted.