Here’s a YouTube video of Cindy Sheehan (via Mahablog commenter Sachem515) that I actually find a bit alarming.
In this video Sheehan says,
Rahm Emanuel, worked against every anti war candidate that ran in the primaries, and actually some of them that ran in the general elections. Rahm Emanuel, worked against every single one of those people.
Certainly, Emanuel in his capacity as chair of the DCCC ran away from the Iraq War last year. Certainly, he recruited and pushed Dem primary candidates whom he considered “safe” on Iraq — meaning, those who were willing to mouth pablum about staying “until the job is done.” Certainly Emanuel made stupid choices about candidates and races in which to invest DCCC money. Certainly, after the midterms Emanuel took credit that he didn’t deserve. And yes, he’s a back-stabbing ass. But to claim that he worked against any Democrat in the general election is going too far, I think. Let’s not get carried away here. If anyone can alert me to an incident in which Emanuel actually seemed to be trying to undermine a Dem candidate in the general election (claims that he didn’t work hard enough for somebody don’t count), please let me know.
The other part of this video that bothered me was Sheehan’s whining about Nancy Pelosi not including Iraq and impeachment in her “first 100 hours” legislative blitz. Sheehan is being disingenuous, or is misinformed, or is extremely stupid. The issues chosen for the “100 hours” were narrowly focused items to be accomplished in 100 hours. As in, getting bills passed and out the House door within 100 hours. The “100 hours” items were never intended to be the entire Democratic agenda; just a kick-off. The “100 hours” items are:
The “100 hours” amounted to Pelosi’s version of Newt Gingrich’s famous “Contract On With America” from 2004 1994. These items were chosen because they were low-hanging fruit — popular with voters, good items to campaign on, and the House ought to be able to pass the bills within the time limit. A gimmick, yes, but all of the six items are important issues that have been held up by the Republicans lo these many years.
Even Sheehan ought to be bright enough to know that the House could not whip up bills of impeachment in just 100 hours.
Regarding impeachment — I’m all for it, but if it’s actually going to be accomplished the issue needs to be handled with great care. The issue is political dynamite, and if the Dems act prematurely — before there is a very strong public consensus in favor — it could blow up in their faces. It’s cheap and easy for Sheehan to demagogue the subject, as her ass isn’t on the line.
Hearings are a good first step. Congressional hearings in the past have made a huge impact on public opinion. We do need to push the Dems for all the hearings and investigations they can think of. Several are already rarin’ to go. I hope the investigations will make impeachment viable.
But Sheehan’s whining about the Dems is not helping to make impeachment viable. If she wants to help, she should use her stature as an antiwar activist to bring a serious discussion of impeachment to the public. Pandering to the easy applause of her fawning admirers must be fun, but it’s not going to make a dime’s worth of difference to the Cause.
Finally, I very much dislike Sheehan’s implication that Iraq was the only issue that mattered with voters, and that antiwar activism was the entire reason the Dems took back the House and Senate, and that Iraq and impeachment are the only issues that matter now. A lot of Americans also care deeply about minimum wage and prescription drug prices and national security issues that don’t involve overseas wars. As important as Iraq is, this is not the time for the Dems to become a one-issue party; nor do I think so many Dems would have been elected had they all been one-issue candidates.
Many of us have been looking to the day in which real progressivism might make a comeback for many years before George Bush was President. I think we may have a shot. If the Dems blow off progressivism in the next two years, I don’t expect to live long enough to get another shot. Sheehan may not care about progressivism, but some of us do.
I’m anticipating many comments in support of Saint Cindy. Yes, I’ve gone from being a Sheehan admirer to concern that she’s just a female Ralph Nader. (I used to be an admirer of Ralph Nader, too; the only difference is that it took me thirty years to see the truth about Ralph [Update: see this, too]. I’m either getting quicker, or more jaded.) Note that I agree with a lot of what Sheehan says, and I am not at all opposed to holding Dem feet to fire as needed. But demagoguery is demagoguery, and a lot of what I see in that video looks like demagoguery to me.
Sheehan’s claim to fame is a mother whose son was killed in Iraq. She’s not a political professional of any sort. Consequently, I think it’s understandable that (1) she’s obsessed with Iraq, and (2) that she’s poorly informed re most other issues, and especially regarding the nuances of political process. Because she doesn’t know about those issues, she should keep her mouth shut about them, but apparently she’s not willing to do that. The Dems need to handle her carefully; she’s helped them in some ways, but she shouldn’t be seen as a political expert, and in particular she shouldn’t be seen as speaking for the party.
claims that he didn’t work hard enough for somebody don’t count
Why not? If the DCCC could have helped elect a candidate but chose not to do so, why wouldn’t that be the same as undermining the candidate?
I don’t have a specific race to refer to, nor am I agreeing with Sheehan. I just don’t see that the distinction you are making is a valid one.
I don’t have a specific race to refer to, nor am I agreeing with Sheehan. I just don’t see that the distinction you are making is a valid one.
If the DCCC withheld all asupport from a candidate in 2006, that’s one thing. If a candidate complains that he didn’t get as much money from the DCCC as other candidates, that’s something else. The second guy could complain the DCCC didn’t help him enough. The DCCC didn’t hand out campaign funds equitably, and that was for a lot of reasons. But I think it’s lunacy to say that Emanual actively tried to get some Dem candidates to lose their elections to Republicans because of their stands on Iraq.
What’s your fear of “demogoguery”, and what powers do you think Cindy Sheehan possesses?
She is a demogogue. So are a lot of folks on all sides of the aisle. They go on in their own way about their issues routinely, and sometimes they have a following. And sometimes their demogoguery can make headway against immense odds. Cindy has a following, but as many of those who admire her are quick to point out, she is speaking for them. Her words reflect their feelings.
Should she shut up for the good of the party? Well, I’m sure Rahm would like it! But I hope she doesn’t STFU. A lot of people have come out against Cindy, mostly, it seems, because her actions are “unseemly,” (sitting in a ditch, oh my), and because she has had some intemperate episodes during which she condemned Israel.
She hangs out with the wrong type of people.
Or she lives in Berkeley. Ew.
She’s mouthy and she’s uppity and she doesn’t take kindly to going along to get along.
She may be wrong about some things, and sometimes she may not want to admit error.
Cindy has no authority at all, but she has some moral power which she is inclined to use in ways that make the materially powerful authorities uncomfortable. She called out Rahm and she called out Chuck. I suspect she is referring to Jerry McNerney (who beat Pombo in CA-11, without Rahm’s help) as someone Rahm “worked against.” You can read this if you want another perspective: There is a lot of Progressive Democratic rage toward Emanuel. It’s justified, in my view, and by your own testimony.
But back to Cindy and her demogoguery. Is she so powerful a moral force that she can overwhelm the methodical Democrat in office? Or is it something else? What she has to say needs to be said and it needs to be heard. Ironically, I thank you for posting the video, because I wouldn’t have seen it otherwise. I don’t necessarily agree with everything she has to say, but bless her heart for continuing to say it.
Oops, screwed up the other link, sorry:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/10/rahm-emanuel-democratic-partys-own-tom.html
I was disturbed when she said “Democrats don’t have any plans for Iraq.” I wish Cindy could find a way to avoid using neocon talking points in her speeches.
What’s your fear of “demogogueryâ€, and what powers do you think Cindy Sheehan possesses?
Che — I’m going to be charitable and assume you don’t know what the word means. The dictionary definition is: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.” Another is “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” The powers of demagogues come from having a following. Sheehan clearly has a following, and it’s a following of people who seem to have checked their brains at the door, which worries me.
Demagoguery is one of those things that is always wrong, even when used with good intentions. Appeals to prejudice is not the way to rational decision making.
Yeah, way too many pols do it — it has a lot to do with how George Bush got into the White House — but that’s hardly an excuse.
Is she so powerful a moral force that she can overwhelm the methodical Democrat in office?\
No, she was a moral force, but I think she’s in danger of morphing into something else entirely, and “moral” has little to do with it.
Also, Che — I’ll look into Jerry McNerney, but as he won his election pretty handily it is possible the DCCC decided he didn’t need their help.
I agree with you on your points Maha. I view Sheehan as a sales person.I’d hate to try to sell her a car! In negoitiations, you first seek the impossible then work towards compromise. In order to make the sale she will go a bit (o.k., WAY ) out of bounds, and in the video she was addressing “The World can’t wait”, the most militant anti Bush organization this side of Al Qaida. (not that I disagree with “The World Can’t Wait” in principle.) Yeah, she may make us cringe, but look at what we’re up against.
As to comment#1, I respectfully say that the Dems Don’t “handle” Free speech of private citizens, Sheehan never claimed to be a political expert, she works on raw emotion, she does not claim to speak “for the party”. Her aim is to end the war and punish the Bush regime, that’s it. To say she should shut her mouth is well, UNAMERICAN. ( really Rebecca, think about it…)
Regardless if we like it or not, Sheehan has lobbed the ball into the Dem’s court, it’s what THEY do that will matter.They should be the masters, Sheehan is an amature working from RAW EMOTION only, She is a pissed off mama (Ever been near a mama grizzly with a cub? I have, scary thing!!)
Cindy Sheehan will not hurt the Democrats, they may, however, kill themselves.
Thanks for your comment re: demogoguery. I’ll have to look into this thing you call a “dictionary” one day when I have more time.
I happen to agree with you regarding the inadvisability of relying on demogogues, and it is partially because of Cindy’s increasingly demogogic behavior than I found myself paying less attention to her as time went on.
However, my question has to do with what you fear from Sheehan’s demogoguery, which to me is far, far from the phony appeals to emotion to amass personal power that you seem to be ascribing to her. I could be wrong of course, but my contacts with her (she showed up as a member of the DFA group I was involved with) indicate that she is very sincere and not a phony at all, that she is doing whatever she can for others, and that, like anyone else, she stumbles and makes mistakes. She is not “St Cindy” to me, nor is she to most of the people I know who know her well.
She has a following. Should she not have a following? I don’t know what you’re getting at. Medea Benjamin has a following. Scott Ritter has a following. William Rivers Pitt has a following. You have a following. Markos-Your-Overlord has a following. Are Cindy’s partisans somehow lessened by their following of her? More to the point, I think, can she, or does she even try to make them do her bidding? Not being directly involved with her efforts, I can’t answer that. But knowing some of the people who are involved, I am very dubious that she can “make” them do anything. They share a certain perspective — especially on the War On Iraq — and they share a common goal, bringing the troops home.
As for Jerry McNerney’s district, you might find what happened there interesting. To say that Rahm did not help because McNerney was winning handily is, charitably, grossly ignorant. My understanding is that Rahm didn’t help because he was sure McNerney didn’t have a chance. And of course, McNerney was openly against the war.
McNerney’s win was anything but assured, believe me.
Minor nitpick, but Gingrich’s Contract with America dates from 1994, not 2004.
I was only suggesting what might have happened with McNerney; I didn’t know. In fact, a lot of people in close races didn’t get help, and people who were losing big did get help, from the DCCC. That’s a fact. Emanuel and Co. handed out money in stupid ways. I’m not defending Emanuel. But Sheehan seemed to be implying that Emanuel wanted those candidates to lose to Republicans because they were against the war in Iraq, and I still say that’s nuts. There’s a difference between stupid and malicious.
Also, Sheehan may very well be sincere and still be a demagogue. I think she’s letting her ego get in the way of her judgment, however. The old Paul Krugman column about Ralph Nader I linked to in the post is a good explanation of how a well-meaning person can go off the rails.
I don’t disagree with you that Cindy is a demogogue.
I don’t believe her demogoguery is a “bad” thing under the circumstances, however. She has a perfect right to appeal to emotion under the circumstances, and I’m glad she does. There is no way to halt the catastrophe in Iraq and to end the carnival of death going on there through purely analytical means. She has a role to play in the overall effort to end the monstrous horror being inflicted on Americans in the field and Iraqis who can’t escape, and I’d sure rather somebody demogogue the issue than politely “discuss” it.
This is a link to a Calitics CA-11 post that might give you a better idea of what was going on in the district, and why there is so much animosity toward Rahm Emanuel there. And there is a lot of it.
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=661
There’s lots more about CA-11 at Calitics.
McNerney’s win put an end to the depredations of Richard Pombo, one of the highest ranking and most odious Republicans in the House. It was a hosanna moment throughout the state and much of the country. And it was done against massive odds, in what was thought to be a solidly “red” California semi-rural district, without the support of Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC, and according to some — I can’t say myself, wasn’t there — it was done in spite of Emanuel’s efforts to undermine McNerney.
FYI, CA-11 adjoins CA-9, Barbara Lee’s district which includes Berkeley (where Cindy lives), and CA-10, Ellen Tauscher’s district, where Cindy used to live.
Che/Maha – On McNerney, he was significantly behind at first, then made a comeback (with help from people like Republican elder Pete McClosky), and I seem to recall he got some Democratic Party help at the end.
Emanuel coached Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth from the beginning. She took the muddy middle road and lost. This is just an anecdote, but others who spoke from the heart seemed to do better than the closely managed campaigns in the 2006 midterms. John Nichols of The Nation might have a quantified analysis of this.
The BOTTOM LINE seems to be, there’s general agreement that Emanuel and the Democratic Party leadership are too timid and Sheehan is a bit shrill.
there’s general agreement that Emanuel and the Democratic Party leadership are too timid and Sheehan is a bit shrill.
There’s leadership and there’s leadership. Some of the party leadership (e.g., Schumer, Emanuel, the DLC) is way timid and, yes, need their butts kicked. But much of the congressional leadership is beginning to look promising. There WILL be hearings. There WILL be investigations. Pelosi today said that Congress will not fund Bush’s “surge” unless he makes a case to justify it. Maybe they’ll cave; we’ll see. But I believe very strongly that they will be less likely to cave if they feel support from the constituents — positive reinforcement — than if they figure they’re going to be slammed no matter what they do from Left and Right.
Contrary to what Che writes in #14, I think Sheehan is in a position to do a lot of damage. The last thing the Dems need right now is someone on the Left reinforcing the “spineless Dems” meme and stirring up antiwar activists against the Dems with the Right’s talking points. This is the same crap the New Left used to pull in the 1970s, and it damaged the Dem party so badly it never fully recovered (leaving us all at the mercy of Republicans). Sheehan may think she’s pushing Dems to do the right thing, but I think her timing and tactics are lousy.
Cindy’s timing and tactics may be lousy (or they may be what’s needed)\ — remember she’s not a professional pol — but I think you are ascribing her waaaay too much power, and you’re puffing up her following far beyond their numbers and influence.
For the most part, Cindy’s commentary is ignored these days in the highest circles, even though she’s pretty widely and highly regarded among the People for her tireless efforts to bring the war to an end. I don’t think we need to fear screaming banshee hordes led by Cindy “destroying” the Democrats’ chances, at least not anytime soon.
Relax.
For the most part, Cindy’s commentary is ignored these days in the highest circles, even though she’s pretty widely and highly regarded among the People for her tireless efforts to bring the war to an end.
That’s exactly my point. Someone “widely and highly regarded” by ordinary people can cause a lot of damage, because sooner or later public opinion rules.
Look, most people go through their lives looking for a Mommy or a Daddy to take away their anxieties, and when they find someone who they think is morally pure and has all the answers they’ll check their brains and believe everything the Mommy or Daddy says. That accounts for why so many people blindly followed Bush for so long after 9/11.
What I see in that video is an audience that adores Sheehan and accepts everything she says unquestioningly, and Sheehan pandering to them to get their approval. I find that highly disturbing. The truth and the cause have a way of getting lost in these situations. I don’t think she’s turned into the Tammy Faye Bakker of the antiwar movement just yet, but she’s heading in that direction.
Whether she has a right to speak isn’t the issue. Of course she has a right to speak, just as I have a right to criticize her. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t make it a smart thing to do.
maha, in all honesty — you are a demagogue.
So am I, by the way, when I speak for my pet issues, and demand their attention. Cindy is not a Democrat, she is a mother who preferred the Democratic party to the criminal Republicans.
Let’s be straight, if you want to build alliances you have to let people sing their own songs their own ways. If you try to prematurely wedge us into a straitened consensus there will be factional splitting all over the place. Consensus evolves.
I want medical cannabis to be recognized, for the sake of the sick and the dying, and for my own sake, and for the sake of society. I don’t see it in the first hundred hours either and don’t expect to see it before more pressing matters are addressed — removing authority to kill in our name.
Cindy Sheehan is a heroine to me, even if she says things I might not, or might have a different opinion on some things. She stood up and said her piece, and she has never sat down and shut up since. God bless Cindy Sheehan.
maha, in all honesty — you are a demagogue.
Nope. I’m a curmudgeon, and you are an idiot.
Consensus evolves.
Exactly. Sheehan is getting in the way of that. That’s the point. Blunderbuss attacks on the entire Democratic Party do nothing but cause mistrust and divisiveness; they don’t help people get together to build bridges and reach consensus. I’m sorry you can’t see that. Sure, some Dems deserve a good kicking, but she’s not discriminating against the jerks and the ones who are trying to do better.
BTW, in future, please consult the comment policy, particularly Item # 7c.
Obviously, what she has to say needs to be heard. But there are many freshly elected Democrats that now hold offices with a vote that need to be heard too. For instance:
On Hardball last Thursday, Senator Webb said “we need to start with a diplomatic solution that will allow us to withdraw our combat troops and maintain stability in the region and continue to be able to fight the international terrorism and enable us to address our broader strategic vision around the world.”
If Mrs. Sheehan’s antics continue to be so badly mistimed, she can steal valuable thunder from rational thought wrapped in majority status.
I hope she knows that her pass as a Gold Star Mom can have a self imposed expiration date from an assortment of behaviors far short of Demagoguery. Persistent shrillness alone could stunt motion towards her stated goals. I’d like to assume that there are those close to her helping her to speak her heart without further marginalizing herself to those of us in the choir converted.
As this week dawns, only 12 Republican senators, (& Joe L, I-CT) publicly support the surge concept. And as we are asked to consider “the plan” remember that this mission is about American kids kicking in doors in Baghdad to confront people with whom they do not even share a common language.
So in our ongoing theater of the absurd, it unfortunate the we must come to terms. right now, that we are about to mint Gold Star Moms, by the dozens into hundreds and further still. Cindy doesn’t get to help bring the other moms’ boys home. We are not leaving.
The ongoing existence of those that still want to hurt us and the results of our own massive regional destabilization are going to keep us there for at least several more years. Ah yes, the dictates of beltway thinkniks. Here’s to holding young people’s live hostage to the political legacy of an idiot and his evil sidekick.
Remember when we we just trying to burn down a village to save it.
Sachem515: Very nicely put, although I disagree that we will be in Iraq for several more years. I expect the helicopters to pick the last refugees off the rooftops before the 2008 elections, whether Bush likes it or not.
In all fairness to Whig, the definition of demagogue (the noun) is only tainted via its unfortunate connotation to the verb. Post a list of derisive terms if you want, but I think definition (–noun) suits you nicely. The verb form has been replaced by “Roving”.
–noun
1. a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
–verb (used with object)
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
–verb (used without object)
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.
Credit where credit due: Cindy started the ball rolling in Crawford, didn’t back down, didn’t wilt under a horrific assault by the press and repubs, and for the most part she has stayed fairly even keeled. Very few could have done what she has done. Cindy happened at the right time and place and the nation owes her. Call it the butterfly effect; her efforts began the demise of GWB.
Look, most people go through their lives looking for a Mommy or a Daddy to take away their anxieties, and when they find someone who they think is morally pure and has all the answers they’ll check their brains and believe everything the Mommy or Daddy says. That accounts for why so many people blindly followed Bush for so long after 9/11.
What I see in that video is an audience that adores Sheehan and accepts everything she says unquestioningly, and Sheehan pandering to them to get their approval.
Excuse me, maybe you see a different video. You see no one but Cindy in that video. No one. You don’t know who was listening to her, how many were there, how strong or weak their “adoration” was, nor do you know why they were applauding or cheering. You certainly don’t know whether they were accepting everything she said unquestioningly. If you think you saw Cindy pandering to them, then fine. That’s what you saw. But you did not see anything else.
Pop psychology of her followers is always fun, but it is likely to be wrong. You seem to be insisting that she is making these people do something that they wouldn’t be doing on their own. Maybe she is — I don’t know who is there and how easily they are influenced by demogogues like her. But I have heard and met Cindy, I admire her greatly — though I do not necessarily agree with her — and I know a number of people who have worked very closely with her. They are not looking for Mommy or Daddy, and they are not inclined to fall under the sway of Svengali-like demogogues. If you know other of her followers who do follow her orders and are controlled by her, because they need their Mommies, then I’d take your word for it. Do you know any of her followers?
I did see a video clip in which Cindy and others were chanting anti-war slogans while Rahm was trying to give a media appearance at the Capitol. I understand he left in disgust rather than put up with that rabble. Now that might be what has triggered all this nonsense about Cindy’s zombie hordes taking over — and ruining — the Democratic Party. If that’s it, then I think Rahm and his defenders need to grow up. If they can’t handle a little political theater from Cindy and her friends, imagine what they’ll do when Medea takes after them. What will they do when they get called warmongering, bloodthirsty idiots by Scott Ritter?
You know Rahm is heartily disliked by the grass and netroots, and you know it is for damned good reason. If I were in Chicago, I’d support primarying his ass out of office in a heartbeat. But I’m not there and I can’t do that. But I’ll happily send love to anyone who does!
Let’s be clear. Cindy is much closer to the People’s position about the war than Rahm and the DLC is (let alone Republicans or the White House.) Cindy didn’t lead the People there, nor has she demogogued them there (she’s had no media coverage to speak of for almost two years. She is not a high profile public player at the moment.) The People got to that point pretty much on their own.
They want this war over, now. They don’t want prevarication, “surge”, escalation, or any of the other strategies that keep getting breathlessly promoted by the media and the neo-cons. And yes, eventually, the People will rule. But not because of Cindy.
Maha, you are welcome to call me an idiot, but I intended no disrespect in using the word “demagogue,” which I apply as well to myself, after all. Sachem515 is exactly right.
“Danger, Will Robinson!†Old Maha Tape alert. Helicopters and a Humid Embassy in Siagon don’t play on this screen. I hope that this one from your piece at C&L isn’t loaded up either.
“Southeast Asia was a mess for a while, but we mostly found ways to ignore this”.
I for one had no idea of what was happening in Cambodia as a result of our incursion. We had stagflation. We may soon wish the Khmer were in the picture as a less brutal option to al Sadr.
January 17th is the 45th anniversary of Eisenhower’s farewell address with the endlessly quoted warning,
“we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together”.
But we chose to garrison the planet. As Tom Engelhardt noted last week,
“the continual act of choosing the path we are on, and the hardly noticed Pentagonization and Homeland Securitization of our own
society that goes with it are never presented to Americans as such. If no alternatives to what we are doing are ever suggested, then logic is with the doers, no matter the staggering problems on the horizon”.
We’re not going to measure our humiliation by counting the helicopters we’re forced to push off aircraft carriers to make room for more.
We will get our troops out of street fighting, but we’re calling them “permanent bases” for a reason.
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
Remember Suskind’s quote of an administration official,
“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do”.
So those of us in the reality based community must accept that Ike was right, and that we have oh so very little power to influence the course of the Republic until ’08 with a diapered boy in bubble calling the shots.
So we all need to clear out some drive space for some fresh tapes. The Persian Gulf is fat with our aircraft carriers, Diego Garcia is filled with armaments, and dry hole George just wants to know what our oil is doing under their sand.
All we need now is carpetbombing. Oh wait, wrong reel.
I hope.
I intended no disrespect in using the word “demagogue,†which I apply as well
You are not a demagogue, either, but you are using the word incorrectly.
Words mean things. Learn to use language precisely. It’s important.
Sachem515 — “We” may very well intend to stay in Iraq, and I’m certain “we” are building permanent bases and a spectacular embassy, but “we” will not be able to stay there even if “we” want to. The United States does not have unlimited wealth and power, and we do not have the military or financial strength to continue to bleed the way Iraq is bleeding us for a prolonged period of time. And it’s unlikely anything is going to happen to make the situation less untenable than it is rapidly becoming.
Further, I think building disapproval of the war is going to put enormous pressure on both parties to bring about some kind of resolution before the 2008 elections.
[Comment deleted for being gratuitously annoying.]
“Think for yourself, and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so, too.†— Francois Voltaire
[Comment deleted; commenter is strongly advised to read the comments policy before I ban his ass.]
I think building disapproval of the war is going to put enormous pressure on both parties to bring about some kind of resolution before the 2008 elections.
And here it is. Bush and Cheney’s buddies in Big Oil are now going to put enormous pressure – including a troop “surge” if they can do it – so that SOMEBODY in Iraq signs over the country’s oil to US-based Big Oil.
“We” who governments supported the war, whose taxes funded the war, whose relatives died in the war, will never see the profits because the Bush administration has never, ever had the interests of anyone but their Big Business backers in mind.
Does it have to be a house candidate? Because I did think at the time that when Rep. Emanuel said that there were two Democrats running for the Senate in CT he was giving a pretty explicit assist to someone who was not the Democratic candidate.
Meanwhile – forget Cindy for a moment – here is the real issue (writ large) which anti-war Democrat progressives are going to have to confront in 2007-8. From TPM:
MR. RUSSERT: Why not cut off funding for the war?
SEN. BIDEN: I’ve been there, Tim. You can’t do it.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
SEN. BIDEN: You can’t do it. It’s—what—because it made sense in the Constitution when you said you could cut off funding when you had no standing army. We have a standing army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. You can’t go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, “You can’t spend the money on this piece and this piece andâ€â€”he—able—he’ll be able to keep those troops there forever constitutionally if he wants to.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not have legislation then that would cap the number of troops in Iraq?
SEN. BIDEN: Because it’s very difficult to—it’s constitutionally questionable whether or not you can do that. I think it is unconstitutional to say, “We’re going to tell you you can go, but we’re going to micromanage the war.†When we wrote the Constitution, the intention was to give the commander in chief the authority how to use the forces, when you authorize them, to be able to use the forces.
In other words, the US military-industrial complex is now so big and powerful that even a Democrat-led Congress has to pretend that the Consitution (no less) prohits them from challenging it. Right?
“The “100 hours†amounted to Pelosi’s version of Newt Gingrich’s famous “Contract (On) With America†from 2004.”
Wasn’t the Contract With America in ’94, not 2004?
Maha, you might find it interesting to google the phrase, “Words mean things.” It’s been a phrase in common currency on the right since Newt Gingrich. Of course they were parsing the meanings of “is” in reference to sexual indiscretions, and using words in ways that you might call, quite accurately, demagogic.
I have no hostility towards you, but I don’t consider myself bound to the Democratic party at the agent of change, nor does Cindy Sheehan, I think. She (and I as well) has said she is against the Republicans, but the Democrats are riding a tiger now and there really is a need to deliver us out of this war as soon as possible, or there will be no constituency for the Democratic party in 2008.
OOOOO,
Sunday night jello wrestlin’ at the Mahablog!
In other words, the US military-industrial complex is now so big and powerful that even a Democrat-led Congress has to pretend that the Consitution (no less) prohits them from challenging it. Right?
Even more critical is that if a Democratic Congress cuts off funding for the war, the Democrats would be (they believe) conceding the 2008 elections to the Republicans. Whether that’s true or not is debatable, but the political trick the Dems have to pull is to put the brakes on the war without taking ownership of it. They don’t want the Republicans to spend the next 50 years screaming about “Who lost Iraq.” (Think “who lost China”; if you don’t know what I’m talking about, learn some history.) Consensus is that de-funding the war across the board would be political suicide.
It’s been a phrase in common currency on the right since Newt Gingrich.
Believe it or not, I have been saying it for a lot longer than Newt has. I worked for many years as a copyeditor and an editor, and thus have a “thing” about language.
“Think for yourself, and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so, too.†— Francois Voltaire
I always encourage people to think for themselves. It’s when I see them not thinking that I get alarmed.
And here it is. Bush and Cheney’s buddies in Big Oil are now going to put enormous pressure – including a troop “surge†if they can do it – so that SOMEBODY in Iraq signs over the country’s oil to US-based Big Oil.
Yes, and no doubt that was the plan all along. What you’re not getting is that Bush and Cheney are becoming increasingly isolated. They’ve gotten away with running the nation like their own personal property for a lot of reasons (the cult of personality that enveloped Bush after 9/11; the Right Wing media infrastructure; a rubber stamp Republican Congress; etc.). But that support structure is breaking up, and we’re rapidly getting to a point at which Republican politicians will be forced to choose between supporting BushCo and saving their own political asses. We aren’t quite there yet, but I think we will reach that point sometime in 2007.
BTW, before anyone else lectures me on the military-industrial complex — which I’ve been railing about practically since I heard Eisenhower give the speech — please see this old Mahablog post, “Republic or Empire?” It brings up some points you may not know.
A lot of Americans also care deeply about minimum wage and prescription drug prices and national security issues that don’t involve overseas wars. As important as Iraq is, this is not the time for the Dems to become a one-issue party; nor do I think so many Dems would have been elected had they all been one-issue candidates.
Actually, I saw a striking poll in which 45% of those polled think Iraq is the most important issue. The second-most important issues came in at around 7%.
Regarding Cindy Sheehan; her way is demagoguery, that’s true. But then she is not an policy expert nor is she a politician. She is coming at the subject in the only way she can, and in the only way in which she has any credibility.
Unfortunately, the ‘sensible’ course means you’re willing to trade people’s lives for your political viability. Since I condemn the Rs for trading lives to save face, I will also have to condemn the Ds for trading actual lives for political lives. I honestly don’t care if conservatives spend the next 50 years screaming about who lost Iraq.
Of course Congress can’t cut off funding for the war; they can, however, try to withhold funding for escalation. They really can’t do that, either, but they can force the Rs to own it and then, I agree, we might see some progress in terms of disengaging in Iraq.
When I saw that clip (on DemocracyNow – as a rural Mainer, I’m on dialup and don’t do online clips), I took her to mean “some of our candidates beat his candidates in the primaries”. Now I’m inclined to think I was just trying to make sense of her statement, but she *could* have just gotten her ferds wowled up.
Although for me, economic fairness, environment and civil liberties were right up there with Iraq, she shares her obsession with many, including Chris Matthews (who snorted at Webb for thinking Iraq wasn’t the only issue), and a recent poll which put Iraq as the top election issue by a huge margin (second came in with 7%).
And, not to defend (21st century) Nader, but Sam Smith is pretty convincing on his (lack of) role in 2000:
http://prorev.com/2006/11/great-moments-in-objective-media.htm
(4th paragraph & following).
Thanks for pointing out the commenting guidelines. Love rule 10.
Having now had the opportunity to check this thing you call a “dictionary,” I must apologize for mispelling “demagogue” throughout our exchange yesterday. Goes to show how little use freeware spellcheckers can be. Must have annoyed the hell out of you.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Meanwhile, I also had the opportunity to speak about your alarm regarding Cindy and her followers with someone who spent a good deal of time with Cindy in Crawford during 2004. And her response was “Good!”
Outraged Citizens have always had an important role to play in our system of governance. Cindy is perhaps one of the few American citizens whose Outrage resonates across party and sectarian lines, though it certainly doesn’t appeal to everyone, nor is it meant to.
That she is able to discomfort the powerful (regardless of Party) is to her credit, not discredit. However, the Anti-War Movement she spearheaded in the Summer of 2004 never really got all that large or influential. And with the re-election of a Republican Congress and White House in the fall of 2004, her star faded considerably. Bush and his partisans had and have no problem condemning and insulting her to this day.
Now that Dems have Congressional power, if only marginally in the Senate, the War issue is on their front burner. Cindy’s role as Outraged Citizen is to ensure they don’t forget that or other matters like impeachment. She is not a Dem official, nor is she running for office. She’s a Citizen, openly challenging the Powerful.
Perhaps it would behoove the Powerful to heed the Outrage of the People and spend somewhat less time trying to appease and please one another.
Some poll statistics from Polling Report:
CBS News Poll. Jan. 1-3, 2007
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?”
Approve 23
Disapprove 72
Unsure 5
“With the Democrats in control of Congress, what do you think they will try to do in Iraq — increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or will the Democrats try to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq?”
Increase 12
Keep same 8
Decrease 35
Remove all 36
Unsure 9
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Dec. 7-11, 2006.
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?”
Approve 28
Disapprove 70
Unsure 2
“Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?”
Increased 17
Decreased 52
Kept same 27
Unsure 1
Cindy is much closer to the People on this issue than many of our Powers That Be choose to admit, and the more discomfort she and the rest of us can bring to them on this issue, the better. In my view.
Che — you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know, and I’m not at all opposed to keeping the pressure on the Dems. I have made that same speech here on the blog many times. What I’m saying is that there are smart ways to do that, and there are stupid and counterproductive ways to do that.
I am a five-alarm American history nerd, and I assure you that, although Outraged Citizens have been great forces for good in our country, there have been plenty of times when Outraged Citizens not only got their butts kicked but also inadvertently set back their own causes in the process. If you think the Outraged Citizen thing is always productive and never counterproductive, you are naive.
Now that sufficient numbers of people have demonstrated they have no clue what I’m talking about and are arguing apples when I’m talking about oranges, I’m closing comments; see Comment Policy # 7d