Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
May 24, 2007 5:41 AM
VOTE ALERT: Dick Cheney Dems Plan to Hide Votes On Iraq TODAY
Today is the day House Democrats are expected to vote on Iraq - except, news out of Washington this morning says the leadership has come up with a nifty little trick to try to prevent the public from seeing who voted for giving Bush a blank check, and who voted against it. If you thought Democrats were behaving like cowards by caving into a President at a three-decade low in presidential polling and giving him the very blank check they explicitly promised not to give him during the 2006 election, you ain't seen nothing yet. We are watching the rise of the Dick Cheney Democrats - that is, the rise of Democrats who endorse governing in secret and hiding the public's business from the public itself. Here's how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know - it could change at the last minute). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a "rule" that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions - blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass.
This means that when the public goes to look for the real vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won't find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote, which was the real vote. Democratic lawmakers, of course, will use the Memorial Day recess to tell their angry constituents they really are using all of their power to end the war, that they voted against the Republican blank check amendment which the rule deliberately propels, and that the vote on the rule - which was the real vote for war - wasn't really the important vote, when, in fact, they know very well it is the biggest vote on the war since original 2002 authorization for the invasion. It is a devious, deliberately confusing cherry on top of the manure sundae being served up to the American public, which voted Democrats into office on the premise that they would use their congressional majority to end the war. To read more on these deliberately complex machinations, see Congressional Quarterly's piece just out on the web.
All of this is happening at the time top Republican leaders are making ever more sociopathic statements at odds with mainstream public opinion. Today, as just one example, House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-FL) cheered on the blank check, telling Roll Call that "You drop Murtha [troop readiness standards], you drop withdrawal, the troops win." He doesn't explain how popular proposals to better equip and train American soldiers for combat and force the Bush administration to come up with a plan for redeploying troops out of harms way means "troops win."
If this secretive behavior seems familiar, it should. You may recall that in the past two weeks, the same Democratic leadership that is now trying to hide its votes on Iraq negotiated a secret free trade deal with the White House, steamrolling its other key Election 2006 pledge to stop lobbyist-written trade policy. The legislative texts of the trade pacts in question remain concealed from the public, though K Street lobbyists have told reporters they have received "assurances" that any of the much-touted provisions that purport to protect labor and the environment will be written to be unenforceable.
Not surprisingly, Democrats are reacting to questions about why they are trying to secretly defy the will of the public and disrespecting their Election 2006 campaign in the same way they always do: Like wailing infants. Last week, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) took to PBS to lace into critics of the secret trade deal he negotiated, saying he should have "ignored" his own Democratic colleagues raising questions because they are "wasting my time."
On the war, same thing. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), for instance, today criticized Moveon.org in Roll Call newspaper for asking Democrats to vote down the blank check proposal, saying "I would urge MoveOn and others to recognize that the person who is extending this war is George Bush." This is the same Artur Davis who whined to reporters that it was "unfortunate" he was exposed for taking thousands of dollars of credit card industry cash in exchange for his support for the credit card-industry written Bankruptcy Bill in 2005.
But, then, Davis is trying to pull the same kind of rhetorical trick that so many other Democrats pull: Attempting to make us believe they are merely innocent bystanders, and that there isn't that document known as the "Constitution" that gives Congress the power of the purse over George Bush. We're all just supposed to be totally psyched that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) says she is unhappy that this is all happening, even though Pelosi is simultaneously using her power to schedule this vote, and set it up in a way so as to hide it from the public. She would have us believe that September will be "really the moment of truth for this war," as Congressional Quarterly quotes her saying - as if it's no big deal that more troops will die because she and her colleagues are willing to drag their feet from the comfortable guarded confines of the U.S. Capitol. We're all just supposed to wildly applaud when Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) goes on national television to say that the bill they are pushing is "the beginning of the end of the president's policy in Iraq" - we're not supposed to know that he and his colleagues stripped out the timelines for withdrawal and even stripped out waivable troop readiness standards.
The good news is that the public is getting smart, and the traditional media's monopoly on news - which often means we don't actually get the real news - is ending. Today, it is more difficult than ever for politicians to go the Dick Cheney Energy Task Force route by trying to hide their shenanigans from public view. Democratic leaders, try as they might to negotiate secret NAFTA-style trade deals and use parliamentary pirouettes to hide votes on the Iraq War, aren't fooling anyone. And come 2008, they will be held to account.
I'll do an update on the Iraq vote later today when/if it happens. If you are watching C-SPAN, make sure to carefully watch the vote on the rule. All the Republicans will likely vote no - they want an open debate because they somehow think reiterating to America their steadfast support for the Iraq War is good politics. You are going to see a lot of Democrats stand up and berate the war, and say they really are voting against funding the war because they are voting against the predetermined Republican amendment. Yet, most of these Democrats will likely vote for the rule, which is the real vote for war. Democrats voting yes on the rule are the ones who are casting their vote to give President Bush a blank check.Remember, all we need is 20 Democrats to vote NO on the rule to send the bill down and start over. If that doesn't happen, then the question becomes which U.S. Senator is going to answer the "where's the beef?" question by putting their antiwar rhetoric into action by pulling an old-school, read-the-phonebook filibuster? Sens. Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold seem to be girding for a big fight, while the Associated Press reports both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "declined" to take a position. Will we see a real filibuster, or will we see capitulation in the upper chamber? Stay tuned.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Another vote against Real ID (guest post)
- An incredibly thoughtful look at border security (guest post)
- A Monday smattering (guest post)
- How about this for a perversion of justice? (guest post)
- From the horse's mouth (guest post)
- States and gas (guest post)
- Good news bears (guest post)
- What part of "worker exploitation" don't you understand?
- Update on landmark Connecticut Healthcare Bill
- Paterson steps up to the plate
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
June 17, 2008 -
June 10, 2008 -
June 3, 2008 -
May 28, 2008 -
May 19, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
For someone who used to work in the House of Representatives you don't seem to know much about parliamentary procedure.
The House rule is designed to have separate votes on the Iraq war funding and the domestic spending priorities such as SCHIP, the minimum wage and Katrina assistance. Separate votes on these two issues = more transparancy, not less. You should get your facts straight before you criticize.
Everyone should contact the DNC through their website:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
And tell them that your contributions for the 2008 election hinge on this vote.
Not the Phone Book, the obituaries.
C'mon Russ. As you recounted at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign awards dinner, you obsessively wathched "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" for days after first getting elected. Don't gorget to load your pockets with apples and sandwiches. Keep it up through Memorial Day.
The key vote is on the war funding, not the rule. I'm interested to see which Democrats vote for the war funding. Pelosi and Obey already said they will vote NO on it.
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat? The Republican sneers when he lies to you. The Democrat snivels.
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason. Support Dr. Ron Paul and end this madness.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Its wonderful the way the Pelosi has served up a giant fuck you on a silver platter to Democrats across the country. I cannot think of any better way to drive people away from the party and destroy its image than what Pelosi and Reid are doing right now.
Cheney Democrats is a rightful epithet for these creatures.
I also think we're also witnessing the meltdown and eventual disolution of the Democratic party.
Because what Pelosi and Reid have done is drive a large segment of voters away from the party.
For starters they just screwed:
1) The Anti-war vote
2) The anti-free trade vote
3) The disgruntled GOP and independent voter.
These are the voters that gave the Democrats their majority and are now gone for all intents. Without them they will be able to hold their majorities and can forget about the whitehouse.
Spinach farmers win!
The way i see it the Democrats didn't have any choice. They don't have the votes to force the President to withdraw from Iraq. If they didn't pass any bill, they would've given Bush a HUGE victory and the opportunity he's been looking for to turn public opinion against the anti-war effort. It makes more sense to take the fight to the Defense Appropriations bill where the anti-war Dems have more leverage. Its a question of the best STRATEGY to end the war. In the meantime, we need to focus on pressuring the Democrats who continue to support the war.
As i see it, until everyone of us understands what and who these DLC/DINO Dems are, what they are REALLY all about and find a way to get them out of control of the Democratic party we will have more of the same representation in our names in DC. They ARE NOT our leaders, they ARE OUR representatives. Their job IS to carry OUR will and vote OUR will for us in DC, NOT to vote the will of their corporate donors/masters.
I'm so tired of reading how the "democrats don't have the votes".
This is patent hogwash...and more of the same BS: "Well we tried but we came up juuuust shy so we have to compromise". Somehow, constant capitulation doesn't seem much like compromise.
In the end, the endless middle-class rhetoric of the democrats is always trumped by their right-wing voting records...always in the interest of bi-partisanship and political "realism and expediency" of course.
Any one who stands up and actually represents their constituents is either marginalized by the democrats to the point of irrelevance(ala Dean - bad example of a lefty, I know, but a good example of democrats bringing down their own)...or...in the event that fails...somehow destroyed politically in the right-wing press....or....in the event that fails....killed (ala MLK, JFK, Wellstone, etc, etc.).
Ever since the little "reminder" was mailed out to the democrats and the media shortly after that oh-so-convenient-and-written-about-and-hoped-for-new-pearl-harbor...you know, the US military grade anthrax...I knew the democrats would do everything Bush wanted.
In a perverse sort of way, you almost have to admire the speed and thoroughness they have utilized in abandoning the high moral ground and their voters and joined the republicans in the cesspool. I wonder whether this is a spur of the moment thing or, more likely, been planned for some time in back rooms and alleyways.
Fact is, when it comes between making a choice of doing the right thing and obeying the wishes of the voters OR choosing that which is expedient and profitable for oneself, the "choice" should be obvious for those with their heads on straight.
I'm with yankee on the "we don't have the votes" thing. Sometimes its better to go down fighting than surrendering without putting up a fight. And you wonder how the republicans have been so successful at pinning the wishy washy labels on the dems, jsmitty?
What I don't get about this wholesale capituation - well, aside from its happening at all - is why the leadership ducked the limelight when it came time to explain themselves. Why didn't Pelosi and Reid stage one of their little news conferences and let us in on their reasons for complete surrender? I mean, just a few weeks ago they were up there spouting about "no blank checks for this president," but now...not a word. It makes it very hard to defend them when Republicans charge them with "political theater," and it's adding insult to injury among those who trusted them to honor their mandate to end the war. It reveals them for the cowards they are. I will do my best to see them out of office.
Whatever writes "Sometimes its better to go down fighting than surrendering without putting up a fight."
That might be a good concept if you are playing a game. The costs of "going down fighting" mean empowering Bush to continue the war!!! Bush and the Republicans would just love for Democrats to not pass any bill so they could gain the upperhand and accuse the anti-war supporters of being against the troops. We know that is a bullshit argument but it does work politically.
Don't get me wrong, this new bill is crap. Any Democrat who votes for it should be thrown out of office. But, this is only the supplemental. The big fight comes in September during the regular apporpriations process (which Sirota claims to know so much about) when Bush can't argue about leaving the troops in the field with no funding.
The Democrats have only been in office for 5 months. Bringing the pressure to bear to end a war is not going to happen overnight but I believe Pelosi and Reid are trying their best. I don't think they are getting enough support from the Blue dogs or the Dem Senators.
And BTW, Pelosi and Reid did a press conference.
"the big fight comes in September"
I'm beyond speechless at this point.
What did we gain by surrendering? Whose children will die before the "when we win the White House and then everything will be all right"? And why isn't 72% support from the country enough for the democrats to fight? Do they need 84% of the country supporting them before they close out the war? 97%? At what point will they feel safe in fighting Bush?
The B.S. is the "we couldn't win" argument. With that mindset, failure is inevitable.
Here are two comments I submitted this morning at HuffPost under this topic of Sirota's blog. They allowed neither to be posted:
Comment 1:
Note the silence of the "big guns", both the Presidential candidates and the celebrity bloggers.
Clinton and Obama must have pulled an all-nighter with their protractors and compasses and geometry books to calculate and concoct their triangulations. Their silence, their stalling to see how bad the backlash would be before they declared a position, is all you needed to know about them. They should be dismissed as leaders in this party.
And note the headlines of the last few days, as this feces-storm picked up intensity, HuffPost has done nothing but run Gonzo-gate, Bush bashing leads, while initially floating a couple of conciliatory second tier blogs way down the list to cover for this betrayal. The readers have shredded them all, from Rep. McDermott on.
Now the factual critics are allowed to post, like Sirota, but where are the celebs?
Sitting back horrified that their power pals have rolled over so fast that there can be no denying their gutlessness?
The last two weeks have been the moment of truth for this Democratic leadership, and they have betrayed their constituents and rolled over for big money bribes on EVERY ISSUE THEY WERE ELECTED ON.
Health care? Ban low cost drug imports for big pharma. Culture of Corruption? The house guts its proposed lobbying restrictions. Immigration? Secret Serfs-R-Us permanent underclass plan is sprung. Trade? Super Ultra Secret sellout to Wall & K Streets.
And the pièce de résistance? Failing on their #1 '06 mandate, the Iraq war. Getting bent over the bench and owned by Bush.
If you haven't seen Olbermann's rant, watch it right now.
Then Pelosi and Reid must be fired.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/
Comment 2:
"Energize our Democratic leaders, and they will provide better leadership." - thunderbeach
You are an idiot. The '06 mandate + 70% support for ending the war isn't enough "energizing" for you?
There are real leaders in this party. This current pack of sellouts must be fired, now. Let those who are energized by voters rule, while those energized by K Street are jeered at and humiliated.
That's how your party will earn respect.
-------
Hmmm. What could have warranted censorship?
jsmitty:
I am really tired of political calculations taking precedence over doing the right thing. Your entire argument, and in fact the Democrats' decision to pass the Iraq funding bill without timelines, are predicated on the fear that Bush will successfully demean Democrats in the eyes of the voters should funding be cut off.
Aside from the fact that most voters are against the war and want our troops home, do we really think they are so stupid as to not be able to see that the Democrats, by fighting for timelines, are on their side? Regardless of that, if Democrats believe that bringing our troops home is the right thing, which is why we elected them, then stand the F up and bring them home!
I could care less about how it affects them politically. Sometimes doing the right thing should trump everything. And it's not just on Iraq where they fail the test. This president and his associates should be impeached. But the Democrats are so busy in their bunkers playing politics that they can't find the courage to do it. And we slide deeper into fascism by the day.
Now let's examine an alternate scenario for those who place importance on political calcualtions. The Democrats send Bush another bill that includes timelines and he vetoes it. Then he goes on TV and blames the democrats for the troops not having body armor, etc. Do you REALLY think voters are so stupid as to not be able to see that BUSH is the one who cut off the funding? And is the Democratic leadership so lame that they don't believe they can go on TV and put the blame where it belongs?
Instead, the Democrats end up pissing off their base while appearing to be weaklings and cowards who stand for nothing. How does that work out for winning elections all you political calculators? More importantly, how does that work out for providing good governance, and reducing the damage from the Bush crime family?
jsmitty
You're an idiot. The polls totally support ending the Iraq war and the Democratic leadership used to submitting to GOP folded like a lawn chair on the deck of the Titanic.
People respect fighters not losers who fold at the first time they hit a wall.
Now because of their cowardice and stupidity they've greenlighted Bush to attack Iran with this capitulation. Bush now knows he doesn't have to worry about Congress baring teeth and hamstringing him.
You think we're in trouble now? wait until Bush whacks Iran and sends oil prices to $100-$200 a barrel and the resultant shockwaves collapse our economy.
Thats the real price of this capitulation by Pelosi and Reid - another war and more dead and maimed. And all of it can be laid at the feet of the Democrats.
"Thats the real price of this capitulation by Pelosi and Reid - another war and more dead and maimed. And all of it can be laid at the feet of the Democrats." - waltc
Don’t forget, there's more.
Bush now has the authority to declare himself Caesar for the most specious of reasons. Riots over gas shortages? Caesar. Terrorist attack on US soil? Caesar. Another Katrina-like natural disaster? Caesar.
And which Democrat will stand up to him? Pelosi? She'll quietly soil her Underoos. Reid? He'll just dribble down his chin a little more and mutter something.
If the Democratic base cannot rally and reign these fools in, we, and our Constitution, are in far more danger than during Bush's first six years.
3rdOption said:
"Hmmm. What could have warranted censorship?
Posted on May 24, 2007 12:53"
Perhaps a rhetorical question, considering that you cut them to the quick with your unassailable reparte...? Seriously, HuffPo doesn't always post comments that quickly (or at all?), but they don't have a firm pattern of censorship that I've seen.
To the issue at hand, note that Dennis Kucinich saw it for what it was, and voted accordingly to kill the rigged rules vote; which was the Dem leadership's version of "Thank you for sharing", to the voting public. The Dem leadership has contracted Bush Syndrome, with its symptoms of deafness and posture paralysis.
Dennis Kucinich is the anti-Lieberman. Where Lieberman talks Dem when it suits him, but is plainly a defector to a Republican culture of unending war, in support of hegemony, Kucinich is what the Democrats say they are, but aren't: a true pacifist who would use force only when truly necessary, and who votes in concert with his convictions, and his constituent's desires. We need many more like Dennis Kucinich.
Never listen to anyone, as to who's "electable" or not. Only listen to your own judgement, and vote for the person who will fulfill your ambitions for the country. This is the essense of democracy. Any other approach will continue the progressive sale of this country's principles, and what's left of its good name. In this instance, if the elections were held following this House vote, Kucinich would likely enough win.
(Thanks for the Olberman link. It was great, and those of us who are TV-free might have missed it!)
I don't think you're right on this, Mr. Sirota,
Here is a link to the roll call vote on the final supplemental appropriation bill from the website of the Clerk of the House:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml
Not a pretty sight, but nothing is hidden.
No, you are wrong. Please read this and the post you are commenting on. I've explained it pretty simply.
Join the Discussion