David Sirota: We Gave Them Our Hearts, They Gave Him A Blank Check

[babylonsister]

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22909

We Gave Them Our Hearts, They Gave Him A Blank Check
Submitted by cactuspat on Fri, 2007-05-25 10:24. Congress | Media


It is a dark day in our nation's history. That sounds melodramatic - but it is true. Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth - all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation at the request of the most unpopular president in a generation at a time polls show a larger percentage of the public thinks America is going in the wrong direction than ever recorded in polling history...

snip//

The blank check sailed through the upper chamber on a vote of 80-14 with 38 Democrats (the majority of the party) voting yes. In all, at a time when 82 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want Congress to either approve funds for the war with strict conditions or cut off all funding immediately, 90 percent of House and Senate Democrats combined voted to give George W. Bush a blank check.

The worst part of it all was the overt efforts to deceive the public - as if we're all just a bunch of morons. House Democrats have the nerve to continue to insist the blank check they helped ram through the House was all the Republicans doing, and that a sham vote on a GOP amendment today - which most Democrats opposed for show - was the real vote for the war. But, again, as the AP reported, it was their parliamentary motion - passed so quickly and under the devious pretenses of mundane procedural necessity - that showed their calculated complicity. Now, tonight, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is actually sending out fundraising emails claiming "the House just passed legislation that will go to the White House that includes critical issues Democrats have been fighting for including canceling the President's blank check in Iraq." Beyond nauseating.

I'm not a purist nor am I a "pox on both their houses" kind of guy. I have worked to elect Democratic politicians and I supported Democratic leaders when they pushed an Iraq funding bill that included binding language to end the war. But what happened today was perhaps the most stunning travesty I've seen in a decade working in Democratic politics. A Democratic Party that six months ago was elected on a promise to end the war first tried to hide their complicity in continuing the war in the House, and then gave a few token speeches as the blank check sailed through the Senate club. And it all happened, as the New York Times reported today, because these Democrats believed criticism from President Bush - the man who polls show is the most unpopular president in three decades - "seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left."

Democratic politicians, Capitol Hill staff, political consultants and all their lobbyist friends sitting comfortably tonight in their Northwest Washington homes believe the public thinks Democrats are "weak" because they don't more strongly support leaving American troops to be killed or maimed in the middle of a bloody civil war in a country half way around the globe that had no WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11. What they seem unable - or unwilling - to realize is that the public has believed Democrats are weak not because some in the party have opposed the war, but because many in the party refuse to wield the power the public entrusts them with on all sorts of issues. At least on Iraq - the biggest issue of the day - the public's perception has proven right. As I wrote to one congressional lawmaker in an e-mail correspondence we had today: "The spoils go to those who use the power they are entrusted with, while infamy goes to those who squander it."

In the movie "Say Anything," John Cusack famously laments after being dumped that "I gave her my heart, she gave me a pen." The American people gave Democrats their heart in November 2006. In return, Democrats gave George Bush a blank check in May 2007. We gave them our heart, they gave him a blank check. That will make May 24, 2007 a dark day generations to come will look back on - a day when Democrats in Washington not only continued a war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government's role is to ignore the will of the American people.

[MiaCulpa]

1. Well, that's real purty.

But Sirota is one of those who helped push Sherrod Brown in and Paul Hackett out, and Brown promptly voted yesterday to continue the war. I've got enough anger to go all over the place.

[n2doc]

5. Well, now we know, don't we?

I am sure Sirota also feels betrayed, look at the title. And given how Webb and Tester voted, I would not be so sure Hackett would not have caved as well. But we know where these people stand now, don't we?

[loudsue]

7. Exactly! Brown was supposed to be the guy that could "win".

But he's EXACTLY the kind of guy that, in the long run, leads us to LOSE, because he votes with the repukes. Unless we get people that actually have a SPINE elected, we will continue to be the party that is WEAK. Duh? "No spine" ALWAYS makes a person WEAK.

But people continue to buy the meme that the "LIEbermans" of this world have to keep getting the nomination because the DLC does such a great job of winning elections. No. In the long run, they make the party WEAK because they PREVENT us from standing for the things the Dem party was always loved for by THE PEOPLE.

The whole DLC (republican infiltrators into the Dem party) philosophy is a LOSER, and Hillary and Obama waited until THE VOTES WERE ASSURED before they cast their "no" votes. More DLC shit.

:kick::kick::kick:

[OneBlueSky]

2. and where do you suppose the appropriated funds will end up? . . .

increasing military pay? . . . providing our troops with better equipment? . . . more likely in the coffers of Hallibuton and all the other contractors who are making untold billions off this war by charging $100/load for doing laundry . . .

[babylonsister]

4. Did you see this? Now Gates want the troops to forego pay raises

so that DoD can buy them MRAPs, which they should have had in the first place, and shouldn't have to pay for out of their own pockets. Isn't putting their lives on the line enough?:grr:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x961354

[bvar22]

8. Appropriated Funds?

$Millions will wind up back in DC, in the pockets of those who voted for this obscinity.

Democrats(?) in "The Leadership" are sitting in the backroom, feet on the desk, lighting their Cubans with $100Dollar bills, and laughing hysterically at the Democratic base, repeating over and over:
"What are they gonna do? Vote for a Republican? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Selatius]

3. The War Machine and its masters on Wall Street once again asserts itself as victor over the people.

Kiss the chains of servitude.

[Polemicist]

6. Sirota sure can write well...

And I'm unhappy as well that Democrats projected weakness rather than strength today, reinforcing that same old tired stereotype about Democrats being weaker than Republicans.

But....The polls that the Dems had their eyes on wasn't mentioned by Mr. Sirota. And that's the polls that said that only 30% of the public wanted immediate defunding of the war. Which is what would have eventually happened if no funding bill was passed.

The GOP disinformation machine has notched up another victory. They beat us again with linguistic framing, making defunding the war equal not supporting the troops, and time lines for withdraw equaling surrender dates. We did have the publics support for time lines, but couldn't overcome Bush's veto to achieve those time lines. The Republicans held firm and had the majority with the Blue Dog Democrats.

We were left with a policy that less than one third of the public would have supported. And Bush could have rallied public support in the process. We had to move this off our plate and begin setting up the next battle in September. This fight could have gotten worse for the Democrats and had no chance to get better. Sometimes good generals know when to retreat to fight again another day. And that's exactly what the Democrats did. It looks bad now, but we weren't going to get troop reductions before this fall with our best results now. We can still accomplish that in September.

Time is on our side. The reason 70 plus percent of the public supports time lines, but only 30% supports immediate defunding, is the hokum of "The Surge" and artful use of framing bought Bush's war more time with the public. But that's not going to last past this fall. If the Surge works, wonderful, set time lines for withdrawal. If the Surge fails (and this is what will happen) then it's most unfortunate, set time lines for withdrawal.

[mzmolly]

9. Sirota gave Dems his heart?

Huh, missed that.