Time to unleash the hounds on pro-war Dems

Writing about the recent House vote against more Iraq war funding, The Nation notes that growing numbers of Democrats in Congress are finding it safer to vote to stop funding the endless war and occupation. Susannah Vila writes:

Since March 2006, eighty Democrats have switched to voting no on war funding, due in part to persistent lobbying by local constituents and peace groups. After voting for funding as recently as December, veteran Democrats like John Dingell and Dale Kildee changed their votes in response to pressure from United for Peace and Justice's Michigan Peace Action Chapter. "They are riding the wave," says UFPJ's Sue Udry of the additions to the nay camp. "Now it's safe to vote against the war. There had been pressure on them from their districts, but it had been building slowly. The grassroots peace movement has been hounding Congress for years, and finally it pushed them over." The lesson of the May 15 vote? "The strength of the peace movement is people's willingness to keep hounding."

The appropriations bill is coming back for a House vote soon, since $193-billion for the war was restored by the Senate. It will almost certainly pass the House this time; it failed last time not only because Dems voted no, but because many Repubs, mostly angry about procedural issues, voted "present" instead of aye. That's unlikely to happen again.

But last time around, while 147 Democrats were voting against more war spending, 85 Democrats in the House voted for the bill. If hounding works, these folks need to be hounded a lot more:

Jason Altmire, Brian Baird, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Dan Boren, Rick Boucher, Allen Boyd, Nancy Boyda, Corrine Brown, Christopher Carney, Donald Cazayoux, Ben Chandler, James Clyburn, Jim Cooper, Jim Costa, Jerry Costello, Bud Cramer, Henry Cuellar, Lincoln Davis, Susan Davis, Artur Davis, Norman Dicks, Joe Donnelly, Chet Edwards, Brad Ellsworth, Rahm Emanuel,

Bob Etheridge, Bill Foster, Gabrielle Giffords, Charles Gonzalez, Bart Gordon, Gene Green, Baron Hill, Ruben Hinojosa, Tim Holden, Darlene Hooley, Steny Hoyer, William Jefferson, Paul Kanjorski, Ron Kind, Nicholas Lampson, Rick Larsen, Sander Levin, Daniel Lipinski, Tim Mahoney, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Charles Melancon, Harry Mitchell, Alan Mollohan, Dennis Moore, John Murtha, Solomon Ortiz, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro Rodriguez, Mike Ross,

Lucille Roybal-Allard, Dutch Ruppersberger, Tim Ryan, John Salazar, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Adam Schiff, Allyson Schwartz, David Scott, Joe Sestak, Brad Sherman, Heath Shuler, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith, Vic Snyder, Zachary Space, John Spratt, John Tanner, Gene Taylor, Mark Udall, Peter Visclosky, Timothy Walz, Charles Wilson.

These three Dems didn't vote last time: Diana DeGette, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bobby Rush. It wouldn't hurt to hound them a little, either. Here's the roll call.

Your representative is on a Memorial Day recess and probably back in the district until Tuesday. There's no better chance to tell him/her in person to vote to end the war. If you don't encounter your Congressperson over the weekend, call the office.

UFPJ has all sorts of information, resources and advice about how to have an impact. Here's the link.

And if your representative's name is not on the list of those who supported the war, maybe you'll find them here, among the 147 Democrats who voted no. There's no need to hound them, but a thank you would be nice:

Neil Abercrombie, Gary Ackerman, Thomas Allen, Robert Andrews, Michael Arcuri, Joe Baca, Tammy Baldwin, Xavier Becerra, Timothy Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Leonard Boswell, Robert Brady, Bruce Braley, G.K. Butterfield, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Dennis Cardoza, Russ Carnahan, André Carson, Kathy Castor, Yvette Clarke, William Clay, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, John Conyers, Joe Courtney, Joseph Crowley, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis, Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, William Delahunt, John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Michael Doyle, Keith Ellison, Eliot Engel, Anna Eshoo, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner,

Barney Frank, Al Green, Raul Grijalva, Luis Gutierrez, John Hall, Phil Hare, Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings, Brian Higgins, Maurice Hinchey, Mazie Hirono, Paul Hodes, Chris Van Hollen, Rush Holt, Mike Honda, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Johnson, Hank Johnson, Stephanie Jones, Steve Kagen, Marcy Kaptur, Patrick Kennedy, Dale Kildee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Ron Klein, Dennis Kucinich, James Langevin, John Larson, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, David Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren, Nita Lowey, Stephen Lynch, Carolyn Maloney, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Carolyn McCarthy,

Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, Jerry McNerney, Michael McNulty, Kendrick Meek, Gregory Meeks, Michael Michaud, George Miller, Brad Miller, Gwen Moore, James Moran, Patrick Murphy, Christopher Murphy, Jerrold Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal, James Oberstar, David Obey, John Olver, Frank Pallone, Bill Pascrell, Ed Pastor, Donald Payne, Nancy Pelosi, Ed Perlmutter, David Price, Nick Rahall, Charles Rangel, Laura Richardson, Steven Rothman, Loretta Sanchez, Linda Sanchez, John Sarbanes, Jan Schakowsky, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Robert Scott, Jose Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Albio Sires, Louise Slaughter, Hilda Solis, Jackie Speier, Pete Stark, Bart Stupak, Betty Sutton, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie Thompson, Mike Thompson, John Tierney, Edolphus Towns, Niki Tsongas, Tom Udall, Nydia Velazquez, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Melvin Watt, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Peter Welch, Robert Wexler, Lynn Woolsey, David Wu, Al Wynn, John Yarmuth

This is not to suggest, by any means, that you shouldn't hound your represenative if he/she happens to be a Republican. By all means, hound away. A few may end up doing the right thing. But it's clear that if we're going to end this war, it's the Dems who are going to have to do it. That's who we should sic the hounds on.

There's more: "Time to unleash the hounds on pro-war Dems" >>

Calling Obama's & Clinton's bluff; stop the war NOW

Another good idea undoubtedly doomed to fail, but worth the effort to try:

Military Families Speak Out is challenging U.S. Senators -- starting with two named Obama and Clinton -- to filibuster and stop President Bush's request for more money for the Iraq war and occupation, another $102-billion.

Democrats aren't even talking about saying no.

The Democrats' plan appears to be to load up the bill with more domestic spending, rather than trying to stop the war spending. They want to add money for everything from storm-damaged national parks to local law enforcement grants to trying to use nuclear fusion to produce energy, CQ reports.

Instead of trying to stop the war, they've written Bush a letter, politely suggesting that he should change his strategy and plans. Right. That'll be happening any day now, no doubt.

Military Families Speak Out has a simple idea: Stop the war by refusing to fund it. That, you may recall, is how we finally got out of Vietnam.

They start by quoting Obama and Clinton, then ask them a simple question:

"Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now." -- Sen. Barack Obama, September 12, 2007

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, July 10, 2007

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both say that the war in Iraq needs to end. Military Families Speak Out has one question for them: what are they doing now as sitting United States Senators, to bring our loved ones home from Iraq?

The petition is simple, too:

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, you have both said that the time to begin ending the war in Iraq is now. As sitting Senators, you have that power in your hands. President Bush cannot spend a penny on the war without the approval of both houses of Congress.

When the Senate takes up the next war funding bill, we call on you to lead a filibuster, refusing to stand down until your colleagues agree to vote against any bill that continues to fund the war in Iraq rather than funding the swift and safe return of our troops

And their call to action makes a point that some of us have been making for a long time:

Congress has the power to end the war in Iraq now. The President can't spend a dime on this war without the approval of both houses of Congress.

A single act of bold leadership by Senator Clinton or Senator Obama could be instrumental in ending this war. When the Senate takes up the next war funding bill, either one of them could lead a filibuster, refusing to stand down until their colleagues agree to vote against any bill that provides funding to continue the war rather than funding specifically for the swift and safe return of all our troops from Iraq. They wouldn't even need a majority of their colleagues to back them up -- all they need is 40 Senators prepared to unite behind their leadership and block additional funding to continue the war from making it through the Senate.

The Senate Democrats' excuse for inaction has been that it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, so they have held some test votes, gotten less than 60, and moved on to the next topic.

It doesn't take 60 votes to stop funding. It takes 41.

Are there 40 Senators who would stand with an Obama or a Clinton -- or maybe a Russ Feingold? -- and refuse to cut off debate?

I'm afraid we know the answer.

Democrats will be too frightened that someone will claim they are "against the troops." If you're "for the troops", you leave them there to be killed and to kill more Iraqis.

Are Military Families Speak Out against the troops? Hardly, since this is who they are:

Military Families Speak Out is an organization of people opposed to the war in Iraq who have relatives or loved ones currently in the military or who have served in the military since the buildup to the Iraq war in fall of 2002. Our membership currently includes over 3,700 military families, with new families joining daily.

I hope some Senator will stand up on this. If nothing else, it would provide a good gut-check roll call that would tell us who really wants to end the war and who wants to posture about it.

There's more: "Calling Obama's & Clinton's bluff; stop the war NOW" >>

Obey Stands Up...Again

Once more, David Obey (D, WI 07) has done what he alone among congress-critters, Democrat or Republican, seems able to do.

He took a principled stand.

The $522 Billion omnibus spending bill that had been scheduled for a House Vote today was held up when Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Obey announced last night that he would not file it, and recommended the bill be scrutinized and revised before it goes to a floor vote. Obey, clearly disgusted, said he is prepared to cut billions from domestic programs and eliminate all earmarks for home-state spending projects, which congresspersons of both parties are addicted to.

“I’m not in the business of trying to pave the way for $70 billion or $90 billion for Iraq for $10 billion in table scraps,” Obey said. “We asked Bush to compromise. He has chosen to go the confrontation route.”

“I want no linkage what-so-ever between domestic [spending] and the war. I want the war to be dealt with totally on its own. We shouldn’t be trading off domestic priorities for the war.”

In October, you may recall, Obey put a hold on the $190 Billion war supplemental spending bill lusted after by Chimpy McWarPorn, announcing that until there is a definitive change of course where the unholy clusterfuck of Iraq is concerned, there would be no supplemental spending legislation coming out of committee, Nancy and Steny (especially Steny) be damned.


The omnibus bill was the product of weeks of wrangling and back-room wheeling and deakling, and had been an attempt to find some middle ground with the administration, which upon losing the majority in that thumpin' last November got the fiscal responsibility religion and joined a cult with some weird ideas. Bush wanted $10.6 Billion cut from the spending bills passed by the House last summer, while simultaneously addign emergency funds for the State Department and for border security, a pet issue of the Republican party.

Obey is not just directing his anger at the Bush administration, but at his congressional colleagues as well, especially Steny Hoyer, whose comments last week suggested a trade-off was in the works - war funds for domestic spending.

Liberal blogs - mine included - went nuts.

In order for the bill to ratchet down to the spending levels Resident Evil™ would sign would have required cuts that would have effectively frozen many agencies spending levels at 2007 levels. Obey said, in effect, "fuck that notion." Okay - what he really said was “If we’re going to lose we might as well lose with clarity so that people understand who is responsible for those inadequate investments,” the combative Obey said. “And if you take those bills down to the president’s level, it is very hard for me to understand how earmarks can survive. It’s not a threat. It’s a reality. Win or lose, we have to move on,” Obey said. “I don’t want to chew last year’s cud 15 more times. I’m willing to win. I’m willing to lose fair and square. I just want to cut the bull gravy and get to the bottom line.”

Democrats caution that Obey's strident stand is not mere posturing. There is a growing impatience both among the anti-war Democrats in Congress and among constituents in everyones district.

Good for Obey - if there is only one set of stones in Congress, I'm glad they belong to the guy who chairs Appropriations. And I wish the entire Democratic side of the aisle would have breakfast tomorrow from that same box of Wheaties. Maybe if they did, they could truly give aWol what I want to give him for Christmas...a stroke.

[That's all...]

There's more: "Obey Stands Up...Again" >>

Obey tells White House to stick its spending bill

Wisconsin's Dave Obey, the House Appropriations chair, is never one to mince words.

He's famous for his explosive language and telling it like it is, even on the House floor.

He's got a temper (not that there's anything wrong with that.) And he hates to be pushed around.

So it should be no surprise that Obey has pulled the plug on the deal the Democrats were working on with the White House, to pour billions more into Iraq in return for some domestic pork.
The Washington Post reports:

A Democratic deal to give President Bush some war funding in exchange for additional domestic spending appeared to collapse last night after House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) accused Republicans of bargaining in bad faith.

Instead, Obey said he will push a huge spending bill that would hew to the president's spending limit by stripping it of all lawmakers' pet projects, as well as most of the Bush administration's top priorities. It would also contain no money for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"When the White House continues to stick it in our eye, I say to hell with it," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey. He said he will push a stripped-down spending bill.

Whether he can make it stick is another question. As chairman, he has a lot of clout. But too many Democrats seem far to ready to wheel and deal and sell us out on the war, as noted here on Saturday.

But Obey, at least, has had enough. He sounds ready to dig in for the long haul -- unless his caucus undermines him, which would not be a shock. Back to the Post:

House Democratic leaders were scheduled to complete work last night on a $520 billion spending bill that included $11 billion in funding for domestic programs above the president's request, half of what Democrats had initially approved. The bill would have also contained $30 billion for the war in Afghanistan, upon which the Senate would have added billions more for Iraq before final congressional approval.

But a stern veto threat this weekend from White House budget director Jim Nussle put the deal in jeopardy, and Obey said he is prepared for a long standoff with the White House.

"If anybody thinks we can get out of here this week, they're smoking something illegal," he said.

A timely call to your representative in the House would be in order, asking him/her to do the right thing and refuse to support any Iraq appropriations that are not tied to troop withdrawals.

Call the House Switchboard 202-224-3121

Or go here to find email and phone for your representative.

There's more: "Obey tells White House to stick its spending bill" >>