Skip to main content

View Diary: Caucus Diary: Let's Figure Out How to Get Congress to Deny Authorization for a Strike on Syria (162 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  First and foremost (11+ / 0-)

    it seems like it would be a good idea to utilize the references and list in Meteor Blades' diary. Maybe even take that list and expand upon it, focusing only on the "undecideds" (and make sure the NAYs stay that way). We could then come up with some language that can be used when we call these folks.

    Let's stay focused and deliver the same message, regardless of who we're calling. The language should A) counter the current words being used to sell this "limited action" to us by our "media", using actual facts and examples, but B) still be short and sweet enough to keep the attention of the person answering the phone (who of course will not be the rep or senator).

    And if that fails, we need a Plan C. If they do this anyway, we need further action which must be ready to go at a moment's notice.

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:46:09 AM PDT

    •  also (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Horace Boothroyd III, CenPhx, JVolvo

      I like the idea of a blogathon, but it can't be "just" about calling; each diary should have some sort of sub-text followed by the appeal to reach out.

      The subtext could be based on, say, how a critter or senator usually votes on such things as "new appropriations" (ie. a Teahag who is always on about "more government spending" should have pointed out to  him a list of possible expenditures for this "mission", followed by a price tag on each).

      That's a tall order, though, and we've a short window. How do other blogathons commence, are they all just "this is the subject/action, call and say X, Y and Z"?

      Thanks for keeping this series alive. It provides a central focus where we can concentrate on doing the most good in the short time we have.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:50:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  carrying on further (4+ / 0-)

        heh...see that? Focus! :)

        1) Is a vital national security interest threatened?
        2) Do we have a clear attainable objective?
        3) Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
        4) Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
        5) Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
        6) Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
        7) Is the action supported by the American people?
        8) Do we have genuine broad international support?
        Maybe THIS could be one such sub-text: "Does this reasoning/idea of "limited engagement" utilize the Powell Doctrine?" and then detail each and every point. And now you have another set of information to pass along on your call. Example: Mr/Mrs. Congressperson or Senator, you are on record as regretting your AUMF vote--perhaps you should apply this doctrine to your upcoming vote on a similar mission?" and explain why.  

        SIMILAR. Parallels. These DO exist, despite the incessant fanning otherwise, stating there are none between this and Iraq, always by those in favor of war. Let's hash them out in detail, as a rebuttal to the meme which could then be used to further persuade said reps/senators.

        (is this too much at once? ;))

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:59:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not too much. (7+ / 0-)

          We might want to get one or two people to create a handout we could post here which uses the Powell Doctrine:  As in:  We, the American people (or we, the people of District 6 or whatever the District # is), want the following questions answered before the United States engages in a military intervention in Syria. 1)What is the specific mission objective? 2)What is our specific strategy, and will it result in our achieving our mission objective? 3)What is our exit strategy? 4)What are the risks? 5)What will it cost?

          The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:19:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heh (2+ / 0-)

            (some of that was actually meant as "ideas for the blogathon", sorry I didn't clarify that)

            (mega-coffee--it's what's for breakfast! :))

            I do agree on The Powell Doctrine is the best way to build on this as an "action item". Even if you don't think there are similarities between this and the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the questions themselves are completely valid. And our representatives should be compelled to answer them on the record before committing to a vote.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:25:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We the People know that Syria Fails Powell Doctrin (0+ / 0-)

            in these ways: (1) NO . . . .

            Or it could be 'It is self-evident that We the People (and I'm using 'We the People' here to fill in for Dist 6 or whatever.)

    •  I think we need a stronger push than just calling (5+ / 0-)

      our Congresscritters. I think we need events.

      My proposed message 1)Any war has to satisfy the demands of the Powell Doctrine (you don't have to use the words "Powell Doctrine" you can just use the list of questions. 2)If we don't have money to create jobs for the American people, we don't have money for war.

      Agreed to using MB's list, agreed to having a plan C.

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:07:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD

        we need something in addition to calling, I agree. Sadly, I have no ideas there right now, but I'm thinkin'!!! :)
         

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:10:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If we organize town halls and invite media (0+ / 0-)

          and invite our critter, our critter will want at least to send a staffer.

          Our critter will not want the conversation and how issue is represented in his/her district to get out of his/her control.

          The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:18:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Congress critters have an office close to us (0+ / 0-)

          AND they are "on vacation" this week. Take the list of questions (along with any friends you can dig up) and visit them over the lunch hour (first make sure they know you are coming.)

          Hi NSA. I am doing constitutionally protected stuff - like free speech. Too bad you are not!

          by glitterscale on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:15:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Important to have as much going on as... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD, JVolvo

        ...possible as long as it isn't a focus of putting together a national demo. THAT would suck energy and money from everything else. Lot of local protests (and many are already happening) will work better in the short run we have to get this done.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:31:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Risk of getting caught in their spin-cycle imo (0+ / 0-)

      If we engage them with their language.

      Let people who write editorials do that part, parsing the arguments and rebutting them.

      I see this as a 'marketing' action, introducing a new and different message in opposition to the established talking points.

      Using the 'Syria Fails PD = Vote No' formulation will, if nothing else, make calls shorter, which means more calls can be made. 'Please tell Rep X that Syria Fails PD in these 8 ways (list).  A short-and-sweet call, with clear points, is more likely to be delivered in more complete form than a point-by-point discussion in which the rep's person replies to you by giving you the pro-attack talking points.

      Instead, 'Here is my message, please write down these eight points.  Syria Fails Powell Doctrine because (1) NO . . ..'.  Have them read back to you, correct if necessary, thank you have a nice day.

      Message is delivered, everybody's time is saved.

      Present PD points a statements -- and as statement of failure which must lead to NO vote.  They can turn the PD points back into questions in their own minds.  And this will also make them have to re-tool their talking points as replies to the PD points.  Just imo.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site