Skip to main content

In case you missed it,  Representative Louise Slaughter wrote a diary today explaining the decision in the rules committee that she chairs to allow a vote on the funding for the Iraq war.   She entitled it,  A Difficult Day for All of Us

Her diary was recommended, although the comments expressed universal rejection of her explanation.  A little later another diary  (which may still be on the recommended list) was written that refuted her diary point by point.  This unleashed a torrent of comments against her original diary along with many harsh criticisms of her personally.  I wrote a rebuttal comment  not so much to support her diary, but to make a larger meta point, that no matter how angry we feel we should appreciate someone in her position taking the time to explain her point of view.  

Louise Slaughter is no marginal blue dog Democrat, or light weight newcomer fighting to keep her seat.  Wikipediahas this to say about  her twenty year record.  

Despite representing a historically Republican area, Slaughter is one of the most liberal members of the New York congressional delegation from upstate New York. Indeed, among Congressmen from upstate, only one has a lower lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.

When the Republicans ran the house, Slaughter, the ranking member of the rules committee, was the one who was shut out, even on bills where Democrats would have had the votes if it got to the floor . They would not have let this get to a vote.  Democrats and moderate Republicans (the few) felt, rightly, that this was unjust as it certainly did not reflect the will of the people.

If we had done the same thing, by controlling the rules not to allow a vote, we would be repeating what we abhorred in the Republicans.  We seem to have forgotten our anger that Republican extreme partisanship ignored the will of the people.  This principle was in play when she allowed the vote on the funding bill.
 
This is not a trivial issue, since this one of the qualities that the public rejected when they voted against the Republicans in 2006.  All Slaughter did was allow a vote by the elected Representatives of the people to decide this issue.  She wants this war to end as much as any of us, as she demonstrated by voting against this bill today  
 

Originally posted to ARODB on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:37 PM PDT.

Poll

Rep. Louise Slaughter

44%61 votes
29%40 votes
21%30 votes
4%6 votes

| 137 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I think you should delete this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avila

      we spent all day on those -- thousands of comments between them, and you write this diary wanting to rehash the whole thing?  

      What's the point?  Seriously.  

    •  You're Referring To My Diary (14+ / 0-)

      You and I have differing points of view, and I can respect that. Based on what you are saying here, it appears to me, is that we should just ignore her contribution to the war simply because she came in and tried to justify it.

      I don't accept that. I understand she is in a difficult position, but she tried to justify to all of us that her vote signified a victory, and then blamed the Republicans for HER vote. I can't accept that.

      Does that mean that we throw her under a bus and forget her previous contributions? Absolutely not. Nor can we simply just excuse her vote either.

      •  Well put....and I second that opinion (6+ / 0-)

        Will we forgive this vote?   Not likely.

        The Dems know where we the voters stand and yet didn't vote as 'representatives'. They voted as politicians running for re-election again, and again, and again.

        Will we factor this vote with many others that were for things we believe in? Yes....but...

        This is a biggie and will tip the scales on marginal representatives to replacement in 2008.

        Because I believe in One America not Two: John Edwards - 2008

        by SallyCat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:52:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My point is that I (4+ / 0-)

          really don't think that some of the votes that were cast were cast by "marginal" democrats.

          That's what is truly unfortunate about this entire situation.

          Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

          by DMiller on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:54:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elise

          ...given the polling on this topic, I don't think it's by any means certain that the Dems voted against the will of the voters by finally passing a funding bill Bush would sign.  In fact, the only polling we have seems to indicate otherwise.

          •  To Be Fair (5+ / 0-)

            The polling you are referring to asked whether or not timelines should be included at the expense of funding the troops. It was a loaded question.

            A few months ago everyone was talking about the will of the people being to get out of Iraq, and now that will is being twisted to extremes based on loaded polling questions that merely ask whether the public wants to support the troops. Of course they will say yes.

            If those polls asked a question like this: Do you want an immediate withdraw from Iraq, providing the troops were protected? They would overwhelmingly say YES.

            Polls are crooked that way.

            •  Kronos.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buhdydharma

              If you want to convey to Slaughter that even though she made a mistake you value her participation, consider  mentioning this diary as an addendum on your recommended diary.

              You might agree that having her as a participant here is of value, even if you disagree with her actions on this issue.

              Catharsis is great, but digging into the hard decisions of governing is also something to be fostered. Her political job is tougher than ours.  Do you agree?

            •  Very true (0+ / 0-)

              The polling you are referring to asked whether or not timelines should be included at the expense of funding the troops. It was a loaded question.

              Of course, I would argue that it's a loaded situation, and one that is mainly political in nature (given the strong likelihood the passage or not passage of the bill had no effect on the continuation of the war).

      •  My point in my comments and this diary (5+ / 0-)

        is there is a different set of circumstances when one is a legislator than that of an observer.  While some of those circumstances, such as keeping a seat, are not worthy of respect, others are.

        The evidence from what I know about Slaughter is she is a thoughtful, dedicated Democrat (best of breed)  I choose to give some credence to her evaluation that to have taken the confrontational path would not have been productive.

        We will never know.  As in war, you do not get to run multiple simulations.  I don't think, especially in her case, that this was based on self interest.

        I understand the anger that most of us felt.  I felt the same thing.  And I recently did some research on the degradation of the troops, stress and lowered standards, that are going to decrease their effectiveness while at the same time incurring more risk.

        I'm convinced that continuation of the war is wrong.  So is Slaughter.  You and the majority of the Dkos community  have different opinions than I on how to get to this goal.

      •  I think you're overstating the problem (0+ / 0-)

        Though I understand where you're coming from.

        It didn't appear to me that Rep. Slaughter was really trying to convince us (or even herself) that the decision to let the without-timelines bill go forward "signified a victory", nor that she "blamed the Republicans for HER vote".  

        Her vote, after all, was against the war-funding portion of the bill.  She did vote to raise the minimum wage, help Katrina victims, and the like (unlike, I might point out, Dennis Kucinich).

        What she was trying to justify was the decision in the Rules Committee to allow the bill to go to the floor.  As others have said previously, to do otherwise would be to act just like the DeLay GOP used to.  In the very big picture, reestablishing the procedural rules that governed the House until the last few years of GOP hegemony cannot turn out to be anything except a positive for the American republic.

        You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
        Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

        by N in Seattle on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:06:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good points (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, Dallasdoc, DMiller, arodb

    And given much of the community sentiment tonight, it took guts to put them in a diary.  Thanks.

  •  I think it took some (15+ / 0-)

    serious guts for Rep. Slaughter to post a diary here trying to explain what she thought she had done.  She absolutely knew how it would be received.

    No matter how we feel about her vote, Louise Slaughter is a class act.

    Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

    by DMiller on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:35:06 PM PDT

  •  She fucked up (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gutterboy, Cream City, bigchin, Dave in PA

    and thought she could explain away her fuck-up here.

    She was wrong.

    This was a monumental, tragic blunder.  Thousands will die because of it.  

    There is no excuse.

    And why are you bringing this up again?  We spent all day on those dairies.  Thousands of comments between them.  Do you crave attention or something?

  •  Louise Slaughter doesn't deserve (16+ / 0-)

    to be scalped by a howling mob.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:40:10 PM PDT

    •  Oh, but the mob NEEDS scalps! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buhdydharma

      Even those who try to preach calm will do.

    •  Not scalped but ... (0+ / 0-)

      We must cut off all support and arrange a primary challenge in w2008. She has betrayed us, this is quite clear. Her pathetic defenses have been shredded.

      Yes, she is welcome to post here, as I am though I am not a Democrat. If nothing else, our rejections of her ass-covering "explanations" may teach her something. But we have to kick her off the team and get an anti-war representative elected.

      I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

      by MakeChessNotWar on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:44:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  who is this "us" and "we" you speak of? (5+ / 0-)

        that sounds like your opinion.

        Don't start a blog, build a community with SoapBlox - the NEW blog framework.

        by pacified on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:46:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Elise

        First of all, if you cut off all funding for her, do you risk a GOP'er winning the district?

        Second, why should the Rep allowing this to come to a vote (based upon principle) be reason to ignore everything else good she's done?

        This occupation wasn't going to end no matter which decision she made.  So why cut off a longtime ally over it?

        There are those who should suffer primary challenges.  I don't think Slaughter is one of them.

        •  It is a two-step process (0+ / 0-)
          1. purge DINOs (in some cases GOP wins)
          1. elect true progressive (where possible) in 2008

          Yes, to punish the traitors I am willing to give GOP a seat for 2 years. We must give congress an enema!

          I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

          by MakeChessNotWar on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:56:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not (3+ / 0-)

            The last four years have made it very clear the GOP cannot be trusted with governance.

            It won't always be that way.  But today's GOP is bona-fide nuts, and yes, things can get worse.  I'll push for primary challenges where doing so won't throw the race.  But I will not put the GOP back in power just to "prove a point" (who do you think that will punish, exactly?).

            •  Modest goal (0+ / 0-)

              The idea is a competent congress in 2010. If we clean house now, we can do that. I greatly prefer a primary win, but if we lose the seat just for two years, the strategy works.

              On the other hand, if we re-elect the traitors, they will have more seniority and will be harder to evict down the road.

              I'm a chessplayer. Sometimes you need to make a temporary sacrifice to implement a winning strategy.

              How do you think we can solve the problem, if not this way? I'm open to alternative ideas, but they must aim for a clean congrss in 2010. That's what I am after.

              I'm a linguist, licensed to use words any way I want to!

              by MakeChessNotWar on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:16:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Speaker Boehner wishes everyone (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eddie Haskell, Elise

            thought like you.

      •  No. She made a grossly mistaken ... (14+ / 0-)

        ...judgment call today. And she justifiably caught heat for it. And we'll probably remind her of that a few times. But EVERYbody errs occasionally, even progressive elected Dems. We've got plenty of unprogressive Dems with a bundle of poor judgment calls under their belts and a megaton of stubborn Republicans to take down before she would ever appear on the Top 100 list.

        •  MB, I can't be as sure as you are... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          N in Seattle, johnny rotten, Elise

          that it was a mistake.  

          Let's play out a scenario that the Dems did what we want, take the hard line and just keep sending variations of the previous bill.

          Bush isn't like a normal person.  He doesn't sweat.  Not when most of us would be suffering the torments of guilt, or doubt about our moral soul.  He is special.

          And as much as we look at polls, the constitution gives tremendous power to the President.  And he has SCOTUS and most of the military on his side.  If we push too far, too fast.......

          I just happen to believe that sometimes political realities makes cowards of us all (thats an allusion to Macbeth, showing that these conflicts are as eternal as they are infuriating.

          •  I don't think Bush (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny rotten, Elise

            would fold at all.  He'd continue to veto and fund the war, so as it is, from other sources.  He'd beat the dems over the head with the failure to fund the troops meme over memorial day and the media would be fully complicit in doing so.

            Ultimately, I think it would really hurt the dems, and I think that's what they were afraid of.  

            Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

            by DMiller on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:15:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And this didn't hurt them today? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buhdydharma

              When between a rock and a hard place, don't count on a soft landing, no matter what.

              So you might as well do the right thing.

              They didn't.

              "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

              by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:47:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know I've been hearing about it all day (3+ / 0-)

                And I'm no rep, no politician, but I am mouthy enough to urge people to vote for Democrats. Or I was.
                Now, I'm at a loss for words.  (Almost.)
                I hope each person who voted for the funding bill dreams all night, every night, of melted faces and lost limbs, of blood and disemboweled bodies. Because that is what they voted for.

                War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

                by Margot on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:00:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They ought to skip parades this weekend (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Margot, buhdydharma

                  and spend the entire next week volunteering at a veterans' hospital.  There is one near me -- and even an hour there will leave you incapable of the sort of words that just come pouring out of the politicians.

                  So maybe they also ought to spend the entire next week not saying a thing.  Their words mean nothing anymore, anyway, after all the promises made and broken.

                  "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                  by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:27:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  To be quite honest, the lesson that politicians (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          N in Seattle, Elise

          have learned is that they should come here only if they're prepared to tell people here exactly what they want to hear, and to avoid saying anything that would be remotely controversial here.

        •  She justifiably caught heat? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          N in Seattle, bumblebums

          Did you read the comments in that diary?

          I'd say that's a bit of an understatement. She was told  to "fuck off" by more than one person- and those comments were uprated--multiple times.

          That's justifiable? That's an appropriate way to interact with an elected official?

          I don't thinks so...and honestly, I hope the people here haven't damaged the reputation of this blog over those comments today...and I have to add that if I worked for an elected official, I'd think long and hard before telling them to interact with people here. I think that's a real shame too because when politicians come here most of them DO read the comments and consider the thought put behind them.

          Of course, not everyone was so poorly behaved today- there were comments that stated disagreement and anger more appropriately. But there were comments in that diary today that were just disgustingly inappropriate.

          •  Why are elected officials different? (0+ / 0-)

            That's an appropriate way to interact with an elected official?

            Telling anyone to "fuck off" is wrong,,,sorta like you essentially did to they'rereal upthread there.

            •  theyrereal wrote a GBCW days ago... (0+ / 0-)

              I don't understand why he's still here. This clearly isn't the place for him...he's said it and the FAQ makes it fairly clear as well.

              And if you can't see that elected officials are different then I don't have a lot of hope for you. It's not just the official you're disrepecting- it's the entire office. It's the entire system that you're disrespecting.

              You can express your frustration and disappointment without telling a Representative to fuck off...if you can't, well, again...maybe that's a big part of what's wrong with this country in the first damn place.

              •  They aren't royalty (0+ / 0-)

                They are our fellow citizens. If they are not fulfilling the DUTIES of the office....it is our DUTY as citizens to tell them so. We are NOT required to defer to them, we are Free Citizens in a DEMOCRACY.

                And if you can't see that then it then I don't have a lot of hope for you. This is democracy they are disrespecting- the entire concept. It's the entire system that they are disrespecting

                You can express your frustration with they'rereal without telling him to leave, in effect telling him to fuck off....if you can't, well, again...maybe that's a big part of what's wrong with this country in the first damn place.

                •  Actually, they ARE fulfilling the duties (0+ / 0-)

                  of the office by voting. You may not like their votes, but as long as they are voting, they are doing their jobs. And we aren't required to "defer" to them, no- but if you want to be heard you may want to find a way to suck up your ridiculous behavior and treat them with respect or they will quickly stop listening.

                  If I worked for Slaughter at the moment, after the behavior here yesterday, I would absolutely tell her never to come back to this site- and I wouldn't take a bit of what was said here into consideration when making future votes. The fact is, unless you live in her district, Representative Slaughter isn't required to listen to a word of what you're spouting. I'd keep that in mind if I wanted to be heard.

                  We're lucky these folks are willing to come here at all. We should treat them with the respect they deserve regardless of agreement with them on each specific issue. To do anything else puts the influence of this site in jeopardy...and I can't believe that you can't see that.

                  As for they'rereal...he's the one who said he was leaving. He's no longer interested in voting for Democrats, then he's got no reason to be here. Period.

        •  MB, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          buhdydharma

          Can you unweave the tangled web?  All of the blogs, are they some sort of a strategy? Even if they came into existence in a non-organized way, have they organized?  Do they collaborate?  On what, when, and why?  Kos said we must fight.  But if there are no generals in this war, we fight in isolation and waste energy with sniping when we need WMDs.  If there are generals in this war, it would be nice to be kept abreast of the war plan.  Even Kerry sold us out to the H-1B visa increases in the immigration bill.  It is an "agenda" to which they/we should adhere; but there are too many loose cannons.

          I read your rant.  I think it is time that "loyalists" (who and whatever they are) quit being loyal to a party instead of the principles for which the party is suppose to stand.  If they/we don't, it makes us die hard wingers just like the 28% who still support Bush.  I think the Dems deserved what they got.   I think they deserve more.  This triple FU from the Dems made me resolve to close my wallet and keep it closed. I may also not bother to vote.  Getting tired of games.

          "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." Mark Twain

          by dkmich on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:21:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I certainly (5+ / 0-)

        didn't like her B.S. justifications in her diary, but please tell me what she did wrong regarding this bill.

  •  you go to war with the Dems you have (9+ / 0-)

    not the Dems you wished you had.

    I knew this war wasn't going to end easily.  And though I am very sad, and pissed off, i feel a lot of the anger here is just to let it be known people exist who want this occupation over.

    If you asked me the day after the election if I thought the Dems could defund the war by 5/24, I'd have said no, so I can't act all that surprised.  

    Don't start a blog, build a community with SoapBlox - the NEW blog framework.

    by pacified on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:45:13 PM PDT

  •  not QUITE true (8+ / 0-)

    there were some of us dissenting in those diaries.

    I was one of those people.

    Most of us are outraged by what happened today but, as always, we're hardly in a chorus of agreement.

    You can't have a thousand comments of 'I Agree'!

  •  exactly backwards (7+ / 0-)

    If we had done the same thing, by controlling the rules not to allow a vote, we would be repeating what we abhorred in the Republicans.

    I admired the Republicans for getting things done even though I hated what they did, just as I admired Lyndon Johnson for shoving the Voting Rights Act down the throats of the Dixiecrats.

    Politics is about getting things done. The Defeatocrats think it is about process. So the Republicans keep winning.

    If you are not willing to exercise power to do what your constituents want, go home and put let someone else do the job.

    •  Actually... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N in Seattle, arodb

      I think you may very well be in the minority among those who care about the in's and out's of the House.

      I've heard many, many people criticize the House GOP leadership over the years for their blatantly anti-Democratic actions, and push for change.  It was seen as part and parcel of the GOP's corruption.

      •  You're not getting it (0+ / 0-)

        The point here is what one's own party says.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:48:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  very few give a damn (0+ / 0-)

        Like most Americans, I don't give a damn about House procedure, Senatorial Comity, or what the fuck the inside baseball politics people think. I care about what gets done. And what got done was that Bush was granted a license to keep American soldiers in the meat grinder. If saving the army requires stepping on toes, its matters not to me.

  •  I've gotta say (15+ / 0-)

    I can't believe that your poll is so close between sold us out and isn't welcome here and made a tough decision, made the wrong decision, but I still respect her and I appreciate her explanation.

    My god, the woman showed up here and took a beating.  She has consistently been a contributing listener here ... not just a politician looking for money (imho) and all of a sudden she's not welcome here?  Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    For christ's sake people, get a grip.  It was a shitty day, but tomorrow the sun will still rise and we still have another 606 days to fight the Bush administration.  Would you rather do it with Louise Slaughter in the House or with a bushie in there instead?

    Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

    by DMiller on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:52:01 PM PDT

    •  Very good comment (7+ / 0-)

      Every time dKos has a meltdown over Dems voting the wrong way on a big issue (and it actually doesn't happen as often as some of the loudest critics would like to pretend), tomorrow still comes for most of us and the same problems still remain to be faced.

      I think that most of those who seem so over-the-top with their blanket condemnations tonight will calm down, once their basic progressive tendency re-asserts itself (you know the one -- it's that annoying voice that tells you improving people's lives matters, and for most of us this vote won't be the end of history).

      •  if they DON'T calm down, this (9+ / 0-)
        liberal democrat is going to be looking for another forum to discuss practical politics in this time of great peril.

        i can NOT believe the infantile meltdown of a number of people on this sight - nor can i believe the vitriol hurled at the elected representatives who are working FOR ending this war.

        this scares the bejezzus out of me - for it shows that the progressive movement isn't that at all.

        not a pretty sight around here these last days... not pretty at all.

        as for those demanding the elected representatives leave - it should be the other way around.  they should stay and those who are dissatisfied with the stated goal of this site - "getting democrats elected" - should take a hike somewhere else!

        [or, perhaps they WANT another 4-6-8-12 years of republicans running this nation into the ground.]

        damn!  3 1/2 months of real work - barely 4 months and the "COOKIE NOW generation" isn't satisfied.  what in HELL do they think could have changed this?  we have a one vote majority in the senate (think joe lieberman) and less than veto proof in the house AND a madman republican (p)resident.

        it seems that the republican cuts to education must have worked when civics and american government aren't being taught for comprehension any longer.

        That's the problem! That's the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! - dave obey

        by edrie on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:19:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In tennis we call that a winner!!! n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  I love that term (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elise

          the "COOKIE NOW" generation.  That's funny.

          I think the dems were really and truly caught.

          Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

          Bush was going to continue to veto and beat them over the heads with "failing to fund the troops" if they didn't pass the bill.  We all know that Joe six pack doesn't get the fact that they have given Bush a bill, he only gets that Bush says that they haven't because that's what the MSM tells him.

          It's way screwed up and we all know that and we're very disappointed about it, but sometimes political realities do have to raise their ugly heads.  Democrats do have to live to be reelected another day.  Giving the repubs a sword this big to use against them was, apparently, too big, according to their internal numbers.

          Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

          by DMiller on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:44:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the absolutel WORSE part was hearing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            N in Seattle, DMiller, arodb
            the democrats (or pseudo-democrats) on THIS site repeat ad nauseum the msm talking points, the gop talking points and then repeat them over and over with screeches of "i'm NEVER GONNA ... donate money, vote, support, etc."

            the republicans have to be sitting back and laughing our collective asses out of office right now!

            what part of the fact that we did NOT have the votes to force this issue do these "idiot liberals" (as opposed to REAL liberals) not understand!

            dave obey tried to explain this to dingbat tina richards and her friends that simply cutting off the funds doesn't stop the war - that it takes pressure from the people to stop the war.

            never in his (or many reasonable people's) wildest imagination did he realize that the "pressure" put to bear would be on those who are on the side of STOPPING the damned war!

            if the same energy, vitriol, activism were placed on the white house and the republicans who are preventing the halting of this war, then it might stop.

            but, as long as fools keep attacking their own warriors, then nothing is going to change in the near future - since the people on our side will be distracted into trying to explain the political reality of not having the votes to gain passage.

            damn... i'm tired.  i'm disappointed (in the reaction HERE).  i'm furious with the disrespect and stupidity thrown at the representatives who came here to treat the members of this site as adults who underSTOOD politics - and instead found petulent children SCREAMING in RAGE at the top of their lungs!

            Will SOMEBODY PLEASE give them a COOKIE! NOW!!! i would LOVE some peace and quiet around here - even it it means caving in to the two year olds!

            That's the problem! That's the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! - dave obey

            by edrie on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:53:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Joe Lieberman was elected over Lamont (0+ / 0-)

          with help from Republicans in general and Bill Clinton in specific.  They took down Lamont just like they took down Dean.  You One can continue to make excuses for the Dems, it doesn't help.  Arguments would be beneficial, and I don't have any of those.

          "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." Mark Twain

          by dkmich on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:28:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ah Yes Tomorrow The Sun Will Still Rise And We (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cream City

      still have another 606 days. Tomorrow there will be 3 or 4 soldiers who won't be alive to see the sun rise. In the next 606 days, there will be approximately 2,125 soldiers who will never see the sun rise ever again.

      If Louise Slaughter took a verbal beating today after trying to persuade us that black is white and up is down, she can walk away without any real harm . Thousands of others will not have that option as a result of today's vote. Visits vs votes are not a good bargain IMO.

      No courage = No $$$ for Dems

      by MO Blue on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:21:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tell a soldier shot today (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in PA

      that the sun still will rise tomorrow.

      Tell my friend's kids that their mother may only be in Iraq for another 600 days or so, called back over and over.

      Today was not about winning the White House.

      It was about losing the war.  And that means losing lives of those who won't see a sunrise again.  

      But yeh, sure, I'll tell my friend to get a grip.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:51:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My younger brother has done 3 tours in Iraq. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm very aware of the risks.

        I'm also aware of the political realities here at home.

        Stomping our feet and throwing a tantrum doesn't get us anywhere.  Alienating the people in Washington that actually listen to us doesn't get us anywhere.  Threatening to leave the democratic party and vote green doesn't get us anywhere.

        Changing the party within and bolstering our party within gets us somewhere.

        Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

        by DMiller on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:27:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hon, I haven't been young enough (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard

          to throw a tantrum in half a century.

          I'm a sadder but wiser girl.

          You will be.  

          But I'm glad your brother is home, so it won't be about him.  I saw six younger brothers and a husband through the Vietnam era, and I'll never forget those years.

          You never will forget these.  And when you see it all happen again, yes, you'll be glad for every sunrise.

          But you also will be wary of telling anyone to get a grip, unless you know what they have had to handle.  

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:46:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My brother is career military (0+ / 0-)

            and will probably be going back for another tour once he gets some personal issues taken care of.

            If you weren't one of the people who wrote a diary about leaving the party because of this vote, then the tantrum comment wasn't directed at you.  I'm  tired of seeing dems immediately go into circular firing squad mode every time there's a set back.  This party is what we have to work with.  Starting something new would take a generation.  In a generation the neo-cons will have completely demolished this country as we know it (if they haven't already).

            Economic Left/Right: -7.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

            by DMiller on Fri May 25, 2007 at 08:09:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I left the greens and came in to try and end it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DMiller

          and I'm sticking around.

          and i think all this is silly.

          People need to get offline and and realize that most of America just isn't as liberal is they wish it was.

          We're still feeling the effects of 30 years of cold war brainwashing.

          This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

          by VelvetElvis on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:47:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I am a fan of Rep. Slaughter, but she, as a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, Cream City, bigchin

    member of House leadership, was dead wrong on this issue.  This is issue is (arguably, but not much) THE reason Dems are in control of the House and Senate.  A better way to reflect that could have been found.

    They caved.  No question.

    Can they rebound with an effective Plan B?  I don't know.  After this rules and floor vote, that is an open question.  Certainly, there is more skepticism now than last week as to the motives and abilities of the Dems.  Still, she was courageous to post here, as she has been a champion of Dem causes, even while in the minority.  

    I guess my major question is "Do they still see themselves in the minority?"  If so, what can change that?  And what would it take to change that?

    But here is where I totally disagree with you:

    If we had done the same thing, by controlling the rules not to allow a vote, we would be repeating what we abhorred in the Republicans.  We seem to have forgotten our anger that Republican extreme partisanship ignored the will of the people.  This principle was in play when she allowed the vote on the funding bill.

    This is THE issue.  Dems should have played hardball on this.  To put in terms of principle, while admirable, is to miss the point that there are not too many second bites at the apple to end this war.  By standing on principle in the Rules Committee, they enabled Bush to go forward.  It was a unilateral disarmament of sorts, and not such a good thought process in the bloodsport of politics.  Now Dems are on the defensive from within, before they were even attacked from without.

    I just don't get the calculation on this.

    •  It wouldn't have ended the war.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      2lucky, dadanation, Terra Mystica

      there was enough funding to continue the occupation. Bush could not have been ordered by congress to have removed the troops, or he would have simply refused.

      Commander-in-chief and all that.  And if it came to a SCOTUS decision, we know the sad outcome.  He would have continued and pared down expenses, and then...and then.. every death would have been because there weren't funds to protect our guys.

      Those in congress, such as Slaughter, who abhors this war from the beginning, made a judgment call.  I happen to think there is reason to believe she, and the rest of the leadership were correct.

      If taking the hard line could have done the job, they would have done it. Check out Slaughter's bio at Wikipedia.  I was impressed.

      •  I Disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cream City, Terra Mystica

        Of course you already know that.

        But let me ask you something. You are basing all of your conclusions on far reaching guesses. Bush would have did this. Bush would have did that. That's not a good way to judge such things.

        If the funds were cut off, my only guesses are that there would be no funds. That's a logical conclusion. Is it possible that Bush would grab funding from somewhere else? Yes. But I can't judge a policy based on what MIGHT happen. I can only judge reasonably by what SHOULD happen, and then deal with the variables as they arise.

        •  you say far reaching guesses... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DMiller, Elise, Terra Mystica
          when has bush backed down on ANYTHING?

          you seem to forget that the "decider" in the whitehouse has a screw or two or three loose - damn,  try LOST!

          for a battle that could NOT be won, do you really want to put the troops on the frontline to find out?

          think of rummy's classic line "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want" - and then simply transpose one word....

          "you go to war with the money you have, not the money you want!"

          That's the problem! That's the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! - dave obey

          by edrie on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:46:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Guesses (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cream City, Terra Mystica

            I know what Bush has done, and what he would likely do if funding were unavailable to him. My point is that we cannot "reasonably" conclude the worst AND base every policy decision on it. That's fear.

            If we make the right decisions, and then deal with the repercussions of a madman, we are going to remain on top. But if we let fear of what might, or is likely, to happen, then we lose. We lost today because we let fear dictate terms.

            •  the fallacy of your argument is this... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DMiller, Elise
              If we make the right decisions, and then deal with the repercussions of a madman, we are going to remain on top.

              WE will NOT deal with the repercussions of the madman - the troops in theatre WILL... and it will cost THEM their lives - it won't cost us a damned thing except the realization that we just caused more troops to suffer and/or die.

              That's the problem! That's the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! - dave obey

              by edrie on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:55:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fallacy (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Terra Mystica

                The fallacy is believing that this bill is protecting them. How many have died today? How many tomorrow? You seem to be telling me that the only way to support the troops is to let Bush use them like cattle until he is satisfied with the result, or there are none left.

                I won't accept that. If we don't stop the war, who will? Answer me that question.

                •  we will stop the war THROUGH the (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Elise, Terra Mystica
                  actions of our elected representatives... that is the only option we have legally.

                  more will die and that drives me crazy - i have friends over there - i am afraid for them every day... but, that said, we could NOT have stopped the war without the votes - and attacking those working to GET the votes is counterproductive.

                  cutting off funding could NOT have happened because the republicans weren't going to support it - NOT the democrats!

                  and if somehow we COULD have delayed, you can be damned SURE that bush would have inflicted the pain on the troops and then blamed the democrats... either way, the troops are the ones who would have been injured.

                  is that what you wanted?

                  That's the problem! That's the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! - dave obey

                  by edrie on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:10:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Friends (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Terra Mystica

                    I'm sorry to hear that you, like many of us, have friends over there.

                    You say that we can stop the war through the actions of our elected representatives, and yet those actions have prolonged the war today.

                    As many have been saying for a while, all our elected officials had to do is their job. They control the money right? That is their constitutional duty, right?

                    Well if they decide not to provide money, that is their right, isn't it? So why do you say that they didn't have the votes? They didn't need votes NOT TO APPROPRIATE. They needed votes TO APPROPRIATE.

                    Some have twisted minds with that strange idea that Congress has to have a vote NOT to do something. They only need a vote TO DO SOMETHING.

                    Today they voted to fund a war they say they disagree with, when if they didn't agree, all they had to do was NOTHING.

                    •  kronos, if the democrats in lockstep (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Elise, Terra Mystica
                      had voted to withhold the funds, the end result would not have changed.

                      the democrats do NOT have enough votes to override a veto... they can NOT stop the war...they could hold up the bill, the money that the troops need would run out, either bush would pull it from other areas that would harm the most democrats (remember katrina) OR he would let the troops go without.

                      stopping the war is out of reach at the moment = BUT, if WE put enough pressure on the REPUBLICANS whose votes we NEED to stop the war, it WILL happen.

                      the democrats weren't willing to put the troops at risk today over something that would not happen yet.

                      this vote would NOT have brought this war to a close.  

                      what the democrats DID do was get money included for things that bush did NOT want:  more money for troop injuries, money for katrina, money for drought aid (approved bipartisan in the 109th but blocked by a right winger at the behest of bush), katrina aid, an increase in the minimum wage - none of which the dems are getting credit for pushing through against bush's wishes.

                      if not attached to this bill, he would have vetoed ANY legislation containing those provisions.

                      this is not a black and white issue no matter HOW many people try to make it so.

                      That's the problem! That's the problem! The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! - dave obey

                      by edrie on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:46:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  who needs to override a veto? (0+ / 0-)

                        If the house doesn't approve the funds, that's it.

                        You only need to override a veto if you're willing to let Bush intimidate you.

                        Just keep sending a bill with conditions until he's forced to sign it or face impeachment for deriliction of duty.

                      •  What you say makes sense, edrie, but the issue (0+ / 0-)

                        to me is that they didn't even try to put Bush in a political corner.  They just passed a veto-bait bill to satisfy the masses (that voted for them) and then proceded as the very next order of business to pass an R-defined bill that Bush would sign.

                        Many people here don't/can't understand that order of business.

                        Maybe after a few tries and some PR efforts.  But not voluntarily and the very next thing.  FWIW.

                        It's full of stars...

                        by Terra Mystica on Fri May 25, 2007 at 06:21:48 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  As I said (0+ / 0-)

                        Why do you keep saying that Democrats need votes "NOT" to do something? Bush wants money. Democrats "DO NOT" have to vote in order to say no. They have to vote in order to say "YES."

                        Once again, you are factually wrong in this instance. Democrats do not have to cast a single vote to say no to a funding request. They simply don't do it.

                        •  You missed the point (0+ / 0-)

                          As Edrie made clear, Bush doesn't need the supplemental to keep the war going.  He'll keep those troops there until hell freezes over, or until he's out of office.

                          •  Guesses (0+ / 0-)

                            As I mentioned, it isn't the wisest thing to craft policy on. If everyone takes the position the Bush will do only what he wants, and therefore not try to force his hand, then where does that leave us?

                            I understand the argument you're making, and I expect the worst from Bush too. But that is not a reason to simply give in and say "There is no use resisting, because Bush will do what he wants."

                            That's part of the problem that we have as a community. We allow our fears to dictate our actions. Please give this some thought.

                          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                            let's be clear.  There are times when we can force his hand, and there are times when we have no power to do so.

                            Had enough GOP'ers crossed the aisle and helped to override Bush's veto, we could have forced Bush's hand.  Should there be impeachment hearings and GOP'ers cross the line to remove Bush, that will also force his hand.

                            But we simply have no means to force him to do something that he doesn't have to do, especially when he has every incentive to do his own thing and no incentive to do otherwise.

                            We absolutely agree on fighting.  I wish the Dems hadn't folded and sent this no-frills bill to Bush, and am very disappointed that it happened on principle.  But I just don't see any way that not having done so would have changed the course of things in Iraq.

                          •  Why (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lotlizard

                            Why do you believe that there was no way to force his hand without the votes? We never needed the votes. We don't need votes "not to do something." Bush's request was not something that we needed to vote against. It was something we chose to vote for.

                            Even if we had sent the same bill he vetoed back to him, and he vetoed it again, he still wouldn't have the money. Some say the Dems would be blamed though, but that's a scare tactic because how can you blame the Dems when it would be a Bush veto that killed the money.

                            It's fear. This party is used to getting shit on, and they are gun shy. That's why we gave in. We need to change that.

        •  It's not reaching. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elise, Terra Mystica

          Bush has explicity stated that there's nothing that Congress can do that will stop him fom having his war.

          Small varmints, if you will.

          by 2lucky on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:56:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, it would have. $120 billion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Terra Mystica

        must have been needed for something, huh?

        It would not have ended the war tomorrow, no.  There are funds for a while.

        But it would have ended the war sooner than it is going to end eventually, because of what Congress did today.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:53:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree except for the "correct" part. (0+ / 0-)

        They blinked.

        A fight on this would very probably have entailed SCOTUS involvement.  The fact that it will never get there is again, imo, part of the fallacy of this strategy.

        If it came to SCOTUS decision, the difference between the parties would have been clarified, both in terms of the Appointment/Confirmation process, and this issue.  There would have been a big hoodoo on this, during which the Dems could have pointed out the reasons for fighting, perhaps to sway public opinion.

        I'm not an operative, but this is a lost opportunity, imho.

        It's full of stars...

        by Terra Mystica on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:26:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I get your point, but wikipedia? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cream City, noweasels

    That could've bee written by anyone, including her staff.

    "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

    by BentLiberal on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:41:38 PM PDT

    •  Wikipedia...... (0+ / 0-)

      when an article there is biased there are plenty of opponents who will revert, edit or revise.

      I have taken on a few such articles and I can pretty much smell them.  And she is the head of the Rules committee which has clout.  They don't give that out to light weights.

      And then there is her large collection of diaries right here, that I guess she has written herself.  But who knows about that.

      Somehow, at 78, with all of those years in the trenches, I believe in her authenticity.

      •  No, it's entirely prone to propaganda (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lotlizard, BentLiberal

        as we saw where I live, where two companies fought it out on Wikipedia for months, changing each other's propaganda there -- including misinformation that may have harmed members of the public.

        It took many months for Wikipedia finally to get on to it.  Don't trust it.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 10:56:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Recently was successful (0+ / 0-)

          in revising the article on fingerprint that had been hijacked by the forensic profession that wanted to maintain the image of infallibility.

          I researched, and corresponded with academic experts on both sides of the controversy and helped produce a more balanced product.

          It is not perfect, but has loads of information give a pretty accurate picture of the controversy over validity.

          But you are right, at any time, and for any subject, there could be inaccuracies. But for something like a congress members bio, I feel pretty safe.

          •  Yes, I've contributed, too (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, BentLiberal

            so now I'll count on your article and mine.

            But I've also worked in campaign pr -- and I'm on the side of those who suspect staff involvement in Wikipedia profiles.  Frankly, any staff that didn't pr a Wikipedia entry ought to be fired.  

            That doesn't mean information isn't true.  It may just mean information is selectively presented and filtered to put the pol in the best possible light.  And that is . . . propaganda.

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:24:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  you can always read the history (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          N in Seattle

          every time a change is made it's recorded, along with who made it and the time down to the second.

          anyone can undo it as well.

          This post brought to you by George Soros and the vast left wing conspiracy

          by VelvetElvis on Fri May 25, 2007 at 02:48:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  72 percent in your poll say she fucked up (0+ / 0-)

        "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

        by BentLiberal on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:03:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The points you make in this comment (0+ / 0-)

        are valid. (except for the ones about wikipedia)

        Citing wikipedia to bolster her credentials is weak.

        That was my original point.

        "History will judge the GOP abdication to NeoCons as the single worst tactical blunder since the Taliban gave safe harbor to Osama bin Laden"

        by BentLiberal on Fri May 25, 2007 at 12:05:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard, BentLiberal

      My alma mater banned citations to Wikipedia by its students, because of its many flaws.

      1-20-09 The Darkness Ends "Where cruelty exists, law does not." ~ Alberto Mora.

      by noweasels on Thu May 24, 2007 at 11:10:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We Can Leave As Soon As We Lock Up The Oil (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noor B, Terra Mystica

    Because getting Chavez's would be a lot tougher. That's what a lot of this is about, unless you enjoy the prospect of $5 to $6 gasoline within 2 years.

    The American public got played on Peak Oil. It's not like we get 150% of our oil from the KSA, you know.

  •  the personal attacks on her (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, dkmich

    were childish.

    That is my only complaint.

    otherwise, END THE DAMN WAR, like you promised.

    The Goopers changed the rules to help start the war....use their rules to end it and then change them back.

    Sorry this, is life and death, not stiquette and civics class.

    •  Aww, your mother wears combat boots! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buhdydharma

      :^}  I'm with you buhdy.  Not even politicians deserve personal attacks and name calling. But lots of this bill/action is stupid doesn't bother me at all.

      "Often it does seem a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat." Mark Twain

      by dkmich on Fri May 25, 2007 at 03:31:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site