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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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

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.