Just say No.
No, just yell it.
What the hell is wrong with the Democratic leadership that they would even consider rolling over for Bush once again?
Here's what I'm talking about: Democratic leaders have signaled they are open to a more bipartisan approach to Iraq that would force the Bush administration to begin publicly planning for troop withdrawals but would stop short of requiring a firm timeline.
"Clearly, we don't have the numbers to override the president's vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "nor do we expect to for a long time."
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.
It was big news when the Democrats took over Congress last year. We knew there were a lot of reasons for that, and we knew that the margins were slim in both houses, with some of the new members on the edges being somewhat squishy. Still, it was a change, and we had reason to take heart.
But what the hell good does it do if they're going to vote like Republicans?
This is the time when we all have to stand up, contact our congressional delegations, and make sure they hear us: the way to oppose the war is by opposing the war, not making nice to the people who are making war. If we lose a vote, or ten votes, or a hundred votes, we can still tell voters across the country that we stood up for something, and the only way to get anywhere is to elect more Democrats who will fight for what the people want.
What can we tell the voters if the Democrats we elect won't stand up to the Republicans?
What the hell is wrong with the Democratic leadership that they would even consider rolling over for Bush once again?
Here's what I'm talking about: Democratic leaders have signaled they are open to a more bipartisan approach to Iraq that would force the Bush administration to begin publicly planning for troop withdrawals but would stop short of requiring a firm timeline.
"Clearly, we don't have the numbers to override the president's vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "nor do we expect to for a long time."
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.
It was big news when the Democrats took over Congress last year. We knew there were a lot of reasons for that, and we knew that the margins were slim in both houses, with some of the new members on the edges being somewhat squishy. Still, it was a change, and we had reason to take heart.
But what the hell good does it do if they're going to vote like Republicans?
This is the time when we all have to stand up, contact our congressional delegations, and make sure they hear us: the way to oppose the war is by opposing the war, not making nice to the people who are making war. If we lose a vote, or ten votes, or a hundred votes, we can still tell voters across the country that we stood up for something, and the only way to get anywhere is to elect more Democrats who will fight for what the people want.
What can we tell the voters if the Democrats we elect won't stand up to the Republicans?
posted by Jack McCullough at 7:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home