These people have lost touch with reality.
Hard votes cost politicians friends.
And, for the moment at least, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison has lost a lot of his closest allies because of the vote he cast Friday to end the war in Iraq. After days of anguish, Ellison voted to support a bill that would require all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by Aug. 31, 2008.
That’s not nearly soon enough for many who worked passionately to elect Ellison in November. They want the troops out now. And this afternoon, his office will be “occupied” with people who believe Ellison violated promises he had made to call for an immediate end to the war.
Last week the U.S. House voted to end the war in Iraq. It was a historic victory for those of us who oppose the war. But, as is all too often the case, the fringe left decided to declare defeat in the face of victory.
I am so tired of this nonsense.
Loading ...
I saw that story this morning and immediately emailed Ellison to express my support for him.
I was pretty skeptical of Ellison, but he continues to impress me since getting to Washington.
Basically the headline should’ve been:
“Wingnuts Want Ellison To Act Like A Moron.”
It’s a good bill. A deadline is the only responsbile way to get out of Iraq.
This was not an easy vote for Kieth Ellison to make. The American people as a whole are getting frustrated as the days wear on regarding Iraq. I commend Kieth for the difficult decision he had to make. This vote is not turning his back on the promise he made to his constituents.
Setting a time table to gradually withdraw troops from Iraq along with the money the President wants for the war must encourage the Iraqis. The US presence there cannot last more than another year. It has been 4 years already. The Iraqis must come to the plate and work out solutions to rebuild their country.
Amen, Kathy.
I was going to bring Blanked-Out out of the mothballs to blog on this - kudos for getting it out there early this morning.
While I respect the passion behind those who opposed this bill, voting yes WAS the anti-war vote. What drives me nuts is Grow’s headline that the vote cost him “dearly”. Really? Where’s the proof behind that? People will overwhelmingly support Ellison in his position - even JNP isn’t pulling his support! I’m sure LTEs will flood the Strib.
This was the best possible bill: Bush’s reaction and Reid’s performance in the Senate preventing the removal of the “declare victory and come home provision” confirms it. Bush will veto this bill and unless a miracle occurs we will not have the votes to overturn it. This is the only way to truly “fully fund a declaration of victory and homecoming” since a bill directly doing such would never make it out of Congress to begin with - the political irony of situation is brilliant.
Bush began this war and will end it by the stroke of his veto pen. Presuming the bill makes it out of Senate and conf. committee, Bush can either support “victory/homecoming” or veto the bill and defund the war effort himself.
It’s great to be an activist, especially for a single issue. You can say whatever you want, propose unrealistic solutions and advocate tirelessly for your wildest dreams. On the other hand, a representative or statesman has to balance what can be done on the physical/economic/political levels with his/her conscience. It’s a brutally difficult balance and one which takes a personal toll. I have a great deal of respect for Ellison, Walz, and all the House Democrats who have been willing to strike this balance with this vote and with others to come. They are our best chance of containing and rolling back the dangerous consequences of the Bush years, and they deserve every ounce of support we can give them. As for Ellison’s anti-war constituency, if they wanted a no vote on this bill, they could have voted for Alan Fine and gotten one for sure.
Should President Bush Veto this Bill put forth by the Houses of Congress, he will be shooting himself in the foot big time.
This Bill gives the President the money he is wanting, at the same time, lets him know that the American people are getting tired of HIS playing PARTISAN POLITICS regarding Iraq. I and millions of Americans are asking for accountability. The US has done enough. It is time for the Iraqis in political power to work together so that ALL the people have a voice and work for a better Iraq.
It is one thing to accuse Democrats in both Houses of Congress of playing Partisan Politics, but President Bush has been playing the this game for 6 years without nary any opposition. Now that the GOP majority has been eroded, he is being forced to come clean and does not like having to explain himself, let alone be accountable for the mess he has caused.
President Bush can threaten to veto any bill not to his exact liking. It goes to show that he perfers partisan politics according to the GOP rather than listen to what Americans are asking via their representatives.
kathy,
If the war in Iraq is such a fiasco and if we are “wasting” lives in Iraq over a “lie” as Democrats say, why should we wait one more day to pull the troops out.
I believe the bill sets unconstitutional deadlines that Bush, as the Commander in Chief, should not be obligated to follow. He should veto this unconstitutional bill. Congress authorized the action in Iraq. If they want to wave the white flag, bring the troops home now — don’t set an artificial and possibly unconsitutional deadline.
It is difficult to know what to say about some of the above comments. Those who disagree with Keith Ellison’s vote are characterized as being “stupid,” believing in “nonsense,” apparently because they are “wingnuts” and “morons” who only have a “single issue.” None of this seems particularly helpful in talking about the pros and cons of Ellison’s decision.
Let me try to narrow down the discussion a bit, so at least we might have some specifics in our name-calling. I personally reach the conclusions that I will list below. All are free, of course, to disagree, but I would ask that the disagreement be specific to a particular point.
1. If the war in Iraq was ever “winnable,” it has certainly been “lost” by now, and all parties know it. Democrats know that we must withdraw, and even those Republicans who believe that an unlimited US occupying force could still subdue Iraq, those Republicans realize that there is no political will or military capacity to send that many troops to Iraq. So there is an unstated consensus that the war is finished.
2. The current maneuvering is designed to assign blame to one party or another. It is not about the realistic prospects of “winning” the war.
3. Republicans would prefer to have Democrats cut off the funding, so that a “loss” in Iraq can be blamed on them.
4. Democrats in leadership would prefer to prolong the war (or at least avoid ending the war), since it keeps blame off of them and onto Republicans, which will be quite handy for the November 2008 elections (5 weeks after the “deadline” in the House bill).
5. The continued presence of a U.S. occupying force increases the violence, including sectarian violence. Occupation does not bode well for a unified Iraqi government.
6. As the escalation proceeds and the occupation continues, the American death toll will also increase (due to providing more targets).
7. As the occupation continues, the Iraqi death toll will increase significantly (beyond the million plus “excess deaths” now estimated), the infrastructure will continue to be destroyed and the external and internal refugee crisis will deepen.
8. Keith Ellison made a very specific and consistent “Peace First” pledge during his campaign to NOT vote for any further occupation funding. With his vote last Friday, he specifically broke that pledge.
9. The peace community supported Keith because of that pledge and was significant, perhaps crucial, in Keith’s ultimate victory.
10. The benchmarks for the next 16 months do not have enough significant enforcement mechanisms to actually force Bush to comply.
11. The war in Iraq will likely be concluded by the next president, not Bush. If that next president is a Democrat, the Republicans will attempt to blame the “defeat” on the Democrats.
12. There is a growing frustration among the majority of Americans that the war has not yet finished, and part of that frustration is with Democrats, who are characterized as “doing nothing to stop Bush” even though they have a majority in both houses.
13. That frustration with Democrats (as well as Republicans) is stronger among peace activists than with the rest of the American majority.
14. The war is not a “single-issue” concern, since the cultural sea-change it creates will affect every other area of our political agenda, including a massive financial expense which will make all other programs eventually impossible.
So there are some points. Feel free to argue with any and all of them. If you disagree with anything I have said, please provide a citation or two, and I will try to do the same. Let’s talk about this in some detail, since I truly believe that this vote was a disaster…for Keith, for DFL organizing, for ending the war, and especially for the families of those who will die while we dither.
For the first time ever, there was a successful vote to end the Iraq war. This was done with no votes to spare in either the house or the senate. To get those bare majorities, there was a lot of compromise involved - and part of that compromise was having the withdrawal continue into 2008. This vote has put Bush in a tough position - to oppose the withdrawal he must also oppose funding because the two are tied together. Its a real Democratic success.
Let’s say Ellison had voted now and the bill had failed. Where would be then? The answer is nowhere. Congress is not going to pass a bill with an earlier withdrawal date. Ellison chose to move forward instead of simply pouting.
To be honest, I thought that Keith Ellison was going to be a pouter - a guy who grandstanded and didn’t accomplish anything. I was wrong. Keith Ellison is a mature, reasonable guy who understands the big picture. You may think this was a disaster for Ellison, but I for one have gone from being an Ellison critic to an Ellison fan.
Chris! Indeed Congress gave Bush the authority to fight a war on Terror 5 years ago. But that face of Congress has changed, and with it, the mood of the country. Public support for Bush’s Iraq policies are at an all time low as are his job performance ratings.
Americans are speaking up in droves to their respective Representatives in Washington. While this Bill is not perfect, it does send a message to Bush that the American people; who I believe are not as stupid as Bush thinks they are, are realizing the mistakes of having gone into Iraq in the first place. This does not mean Americans do not support the troops, Americans do and want their loved ones back. The sooner, the better.
Over the weekend, my husband and I attended a retirement gathering for two of my husband’s former Air National Guard members. Both spoke about their many years of service, the tours they did in Iraq, and the stress those tours had on them. Not very uplifting. They too would like to see an end to this war.
Several members of the Wing my husband was retired from 6 years ago are retiring this year due to the age limits. They had been to Iraq also doing Areoport Support at Baghdad Airport and had been under bombardment much of the time by insurgent groups. There’s no safe area in Iraq.
The progress that needs to be made in Iraq is that of the infrastructure..CLEAN WATER, SECURITY, ELECTRICITY, CLEAN THE BOMBRD OUT RUBBLE FROM THE STREETS, etc. It is the job of the Iraqis themselves to step up to the plate so that our tax dollars can rebuild that country.
Charley,
While none of your points is wrong (except #4, which I think is way too cynical, and really not connected to the reality of many, many Congressional Dems), they miss the point of what actually happened. Except for what I believe is a small part of the peace movement, eveyone in the country who is watching, the press, all House Dems except 6 (and several of them made it clear they would have voted Yes if needed to pass the bill), all of the House Republicans, and the President all agree that a Yes vote was a vote against the war, and a No vote was a vote to allow Bush to continue the war as he sees fit.
The unstated assumption in your argument is that a majority vote to cut off all funding for the war was/is somehow within the realm of the possible. It wasn’t/isn’t. Given that, you and I and Keith and everyone who wants to stop this war we were lied into have to figure out HOW we get from here to there, rather than just being upset that we aren’t there yet.
From my point of view, the vote was actually a major step forward in the ongoing and escalating confrontation between the people of this country and Bush over the war - particularly given (as David Sirota so aptly points out) that House Dems are not, in their majority, anti-war at this point. For this reason I actively urged Keith to vote for the bill, and an awful lot of other folks against the war did as well.
One last thing. Yes, Keith did vote differently than he said during the campaign he would. But he did so because the situation had changed, and because this was the only way to actually vote to stop the war. Paul Wellstone went back on his pledge to only stay two terms in the Senate because things changed between when he made the pledge and when it was time to decide whether to run in 2002. In both cases, the decision was faithful to the underlying purpose that drew the public to these two in the first place.
To me, the question is now how to take this situation and move forward toward the goal. Keith is one of the very best allies we could have in Congress on this issue. He is against this war to his core, and he voted his conscience to stop the war. I urge you to think about the ways to work with him to walk down that road together, rather than adopting a view that he is somehow insufficiently pure.
And thank you for all of your work for peace.
kathy,
I appreciate their service as well as your husband’s service. But wars are not conducted on the basis of public opinion polls. Wars are tough. And even though it’s been four years (not five) since the war in Iraq started, it doesn’t mean we should just quit because the politicians are getting squishy. World War II lasted between 1939 and 1945. During that time we lost 405,000 soldiers. WWII was tough for the country and there were many sacrifices made. But we didn’t quit when things got tough. Sure it’s been tough in Iraq for the last two years. I have a cousin there and hear from him periodically. But quitting would be a disaster. By the way, my cousin and others have told me that the surge is starting to work. The problem with the Democratic party is that they always bet against our winning wars. I know you’re a good citizen, kathy. But your party is headed for another Eugene McCarthy massacre if you guys keep betting against our country and our troops completing the mission in Iraq.
There is a huge difference between sacrificing for a war that is worth fighting and where progress is being made and sacrificing for a war that most agree isn’t worth fighting and where no progress has been made in years. In fact, the situation in many cases has regressed.
While ideally I’d like to consider myself a pacifist, I see many cases where it is hard to stand by and do nothing. In the case of the Iraq War, I opposed it from the beginning but was of the mind that once we got into it we had to make sure the job was finished. However, we have progressed to the point that we haven’t shown any ability to get the job done or even make progress. That shows that it is time to get out. We have sunk a lot into Iraq, and we aren’t going to get it back by pulling out, but we also aren’t going to get it back by sinking more into it.
While I understand the position of the Peace First crowd and sympathize to a great degree with it, I find myself feeling that Ellison did the right thing. I don’t remember the exact line Ellison used, but we can’t let the ideal come in the way the good. Having a deadline out of Iraq is good, but not ideal. However, the ideal will never be passed by this congress, which is unfortunate.
Keith broke a pledge that was really important to many of his hardest working campaign volunteers. Many, many people I knew in CD 5 who would have probably supported Becky Lourey’s campaign in the pre-primary, post-convention period suported Hatch, because they were being loyal party officers and were supporting Keith, who supported Hatch.
Keith helped cost this party a win in the Governor’s race, and the election of a progressive, anti-war governor, who would have been doing everything she could to keep the MN National Guard out of the surge, and using the bully pulpit to end this war, as well as signing DFL legislation into law.
His vote in this case is not the only, or the worst thing he has done that undermines the work of the Peace First! group in 2006, which he benefited from, but not in any organized or pre-planned way, the 2006 Peace First! target was the Senate race.
Peace First! organizers and strategists still have a lot of experience to share, and seek to build a larger, energized coalition that will more clearly demonstrate the impact of not just the war, but the larger actions of the Bush Administration and its sympathizers in many areas, including labor and the environment.
It is worth tracking these folks done and dialoguing with them, regardless of whether you supported MoveOn/Sirota in the framing of this debate, or the obvious strategy that peace activists have been working with since 2003, defunding the war. Peace First! has an event planned for April 28th, you can read about it here: http://www.peaceintheprecincts.org
I am not involved in that at this point, but I still think it was a good idea, and is worth repeating, and if nore people participate in creating the next Peace First! standard, it might be better, and more people will understand what it means.
Impeccable,
Peace first, huh? I have a hard time understanding the peace at any price people out there. I’m not trying to get into a flame war with you either. What I’m saying is that we saved the Muslim people from genocide in Bosnia. We freed a Muslim country from aggression during the first Gulf War. We were not in Iraq when we were attacked on 9/11. We suffered a number of other attacks before 9/11. We have not been at war with the terrorists prior to 2001. The terrorists have been at war with us at least since 1993, and truthfully you can track it back to the 1970s. I guess what I am getting at is what is the virtue of peace when there are people trying to destroy your country and your way of life? I really do have a hard time understanding this message of peace at all cost - unless you consider America the country of evil in the world and places like Iran and North Korea the world’s greatest places.
If you think that Ellison’s support for Hatch instead of Lourey is what made the difference in the primary, you need a serious reality check. Hatch beat Lourey 73-24 - a 155,000 vote margin. Ellison only received 29,000 votes in his primary, and 136,000 in his general election.
“I guess what I am getting at is what is the virtue of peace when there are people trying to destroy your country and your way of life? I really do have a hard time understanding this message of peace at all cost - unless you consider America the country of evil in the world and places like Iran and North Korea the world’s greatest places.”
Dan-
I think you should read Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile and Ghost Wars by Steve Coll. We created and armed the Taliban.
Murtha hints that the focus should be Afghanistan. I am sure that he means the history of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. I am sure he feels somewhat guilty. It is clear Charlie Wilson did.
Did you know we continued to pump in 100-200 million dollars a year in funds and armaments after the Soviets left Afghanistan?
We need to avoid a similar situation in endgame Iraq, and that’s why I want to withdraw from Iraq, and put Iraq back in the box of an arms embargo, and to slow or prevent the genocide we’ve triggered, enforce a ban on small arms and ammunition sales to Iraq and neighbor countries, persons, or organizations channeling small arms to any faction in Iraq.
Again, I invite you to get to know Peace First! supporters personally. Ther are lots of opportunities, but April 28th is a big one, and you could play a role in shaping the next standard. Thanks!
Impeccable, I agree with your ends, but not your means. I want out of Iraq ASAP, but I think the way to get there is passing legislation like the bill Ellison is getting ripped for supporting. There is no way we’ll get an immediate withdrawal, so let’s shoot for one next year. If this vote fails, we’re back at square one.
If this Senate vote fails, then we have to pass a bill that more people can support, so that means a Republican bill, or something that every member of the Progressive Caucus andthe Blue Dogs can support. That means funding withdrawal, and cutting out all of the pork.
If Bush vetos this one, make something tougher, and send it back to him. He’ll either have to sign it, or use the money already in the pipeline to effect a withdrawal from Iraq.
Yesterday, the Saudis cut their support for our occupation of Iraq. It is over. Time to face up to both the political and military reality.
1. It’s absurd to think that Keith Ellison cost Becky Lourey the election.
1a. It is extra absurd to think that Becky Lourey could do anything about the war in Iraq from the Governors mansion.
2. Keith Ellison was elected, and had my support in the hopes that he would be an effective Congressman. I can only bet as this bill had the support and the prodding of the Dem leadership in Congress, that if Keith would have voted against it, it would have liminalized any power he had in Washington.
2a. Further if he would have taken some wingnut stand against this bill, he would have shown all of the reasons why JNP et.al. would have been a horrible Congressman for the 5th CD. Tilting at windmills has little positive effect in the prairies, and even less in Washington. Keith Ellison has not only the litmus test of choice for the peacies to worry about, but he also has to worry about representing all of the citizens of the 5th CD, and just as importantly, using his power in Washington to secure the appropriations for the things we need in Mpls and Minnesota. Sean
Well, are we finished bitching about those “dirty hippies” yet?
The fact that Ellison (and others) held out until the last minute on this bill and that a lot of activists are vocally upset about it means this has a much tougher time being billed as a “lefty pipe-dream” and “now the base can shut up because they got exactly what they want.” No, the monumental peace bill is a compromise that required that Dem leadership do some arm-twisting to get their liberal members to go along with - reluctantly. When was the last time that happened? Seriously?
The last time that happened was 12 years ago when the Democrats last had a majority, and then, like now, the Democratic caucus contained an ideologically diverse group of members. Legislation, especially important and contentious legislation gets passed by getting the liberals and moderates in the party to agree - which sometimes means arm-twisting and reluctant votes. Its nothing out of the ordinary.
And you are setting up and attacking a strawman by accusing the critics of the Peace First position of bitching about the “dirty hippies.” I think all of us here (the Democrats at least) want the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible. Its just that the best, and only realistic way to do this, is to actually pass legislation. Keith Ellison realizes that voting for this bill was the most effective way to accomplish a U.S. withdrawal.
As a supporter of Keith and a friend/neighbor of Becky, I’m mystified by this statement.
“Keith helped cost this party a win in the Governor’s race, and the election of a progressive, anti-war governor…”
From where I sit, Becky lost because her “peace chest” was outfunded by Hatch’s “war chest.” Because there’s a dirty little secret in state and national politics: if you don’t play nice you don’t get a seat at the table. Becky ran without the endorsement and was shut out from future appearances. (The exception being, if you run without the endorsement and win anyway, all is forgiven.)
Back to Keith. That “dirty little secret” is why his vote was the right thing to do. By voting yes he continues to have a presence at the table. I look forward to the day when Keith has enough seniority that his voice is heard; I predict he will be one of the most-quoted members of Congress. An Ellison supporter on another message board recalls attending state legislative sessions with Keith being the only person he looked forward to hearing.
I’ve tried to picture how other Fifth District candidates would have voted. Ember, Erlandson, or Ostrow would have voted yes and felt their vote was bold and visionary. Keith voted yes and realized the bill was only a first step. Therein lies the difference. Never thought I’d paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, but you end the war with the bill you have, not the bill you wish you had.
It sounds like Keith has lost some supporters, but it also sounds like he’s picked up supporters who were former critics. At least the political debate is substantive and not about parking tickets.
“1. It’s absurd to think that Keith Ellison cost Becky Lourey the election.
1a. It is extra absurd to think that Becky Lourey could do anything about the war in Iraq from the Governors mansion.”
Perhaps it is absurd, but I am remembering that Rep. Dennis Kucinich had a fundraiser for Keith, at a point when Becky Lourey could have used that support. If Charley Underwood, Faith Kidder, and other 2004 Kucinich campaign people had put that organizing effort into getting out votes and raising money for a Lourey primary win, I am convinced that we would have a Gov. Lourey and not a Gov. Pawlenty.
A Gov. Lourey would be doing more to end the deployment of MN National Guard forces in Iraq than Pawlenty is, that is for sure. As for how, you have this bully pulpit, you have more credibility, time, and influence on the MN Congressional delegation, you are comander in chief of the Guard.
Ok, now I’m going to say something mean. Impeccable, if you saying things like support from Kucinich and his supporters could have swung the election to Lourey, you need to stop smoking crack before you blog.
Impeccable Liberal Credential’s assertions that Keith Ellison cost Becky Lourey the Governor’s mansion is absurd. I worked for Steve Kelley’s gubernatorial campaign until he dropped out.
I worked for Keith’s campaign after that because I felt that Mike Hatch’s candidacy was deeply flawed because of his anger management problems. I believe those problems cost him the election and gave us Pawlenty.
As her loss by 50 points in the primary showed, Becky Lourey did not have a chance in November. I did not support Hatch because Keith supported him. I voted for him because he had the best chance of beating Pawlenty last November. The election results confirmed this.
If all of Keith’s supporters had worked for Becky instead, she might has lost the primary by a smaller margin. She would not have had a vote on the issue of Iraq war funding from the Governor’s office.
I really think it would have only taken 5 or 6 key “Ellison” people to have won the primary, had tey applied themselves to Louey’s campaign, and had the Kucinich fundraiser for Ellison been for Lourey instead.
Sabo and Erlandson would have made the same vote.
Obviously peace people need to consider where they put their resources, or focus on growing those resources and bases agressively, but for some people like Charley Underwood, hanging every hope on Ellison was a mistake, and maybe more baskets for the eggs is a better insurance policy next time…
Rowley, for example, might have made a better decision.
Thank you, Congressman Ellison for your wise vote on funding the war and setting a troop withdrawal date.
I was unaware of how far your erstwhile support from the radical left were pushing you to vote No, and would hold you to the fire of criticism after making this most difficult choice.
There was no vote to immediately withdraw the troops. If Congressman Ellison - a lowly freshman - was unable to sway the Democratic leadership to pin itself to a position of immediate withdrawal, we should not be surprised. In time, the Congressman may become and may exert great influence on the House. Three months into his first term, that is not the case.
Democrats do not control a veto-proof majority of either House, nor the White House. They arrived at a bill that could muster a majority of its own members, and a bill that both sent a message and strategically placed the President into circumstances that they deemed the best possible position going forth.
Congressman Ellison had two choices. One vote set a date of withdrawal in 2008. The other set no date of withdrawal. Those who demand immediate withdrawal had no position represented here. Would Ellison be better off voting for Bush’s surge, the direct opposite of the goal of those who want to end war now? How is something worse than nothing?
My respect for the Congressman has grown considerably. Here a vote that Sabo, or an Erlandson might have made was the right vote.
The Becky Lourey peace wing of our party is important for its great conscience. But it is a small, hard-core group that hardly held nor holds the fulcrum of power in the party. John Marty was a candidate of this wing of the party and was soundly defeated for the Governorship. Ann Wynia was a candidate of this wing of the party and was soundly defeated for the Senate. Becky Lourey was unable to win nomination, and was unable to convince 1/4 of the party’s primary voters of her viability to represent the party.
Consciences have a role, but a Win is a Win is a Win. And simply holding an unelectable, unviable position within or without the party is merely a Loss. Mike Hatch and Judi Dutcher were the right candidates in 2006, and the considerable majority of the party led by those of us in the organized labor movement were the reason for their success in being nominated. Had Hatch not melted down after the Dutcher faux pas in the final days of the campaign, the result probably would have been reversed, based on the voting successes of Otto, Ritchie and Swanson. Hatch and Dutcher lost through much of their own undoing alone.
It is the moderately-liberal mainstream of the party that will have the greatest likelihood of electoral success. It is a great truism that candidates must run to the middle, and away from the extremes of each party. Congressman Ellison voted for what’s best for Democrats in the long-term, not for what a small group of activists expected to hold him to in order to uphold a campaign pledge that had no place in the midst of the Congressional vote this week. Thank you sir for helping us move this debate forward and lay the context for the successful Senate vote at week’s end.