Help Wanted
Washington State’s 2nd Congressional District is in need of a new congressional representative.
With his vote to continue funding the occupation of Iraq; without requiring any more accountability on the part of the Bush Administration than what was required during the previous Republican lead Congress, Congressman Rick Larsen not only betrayed the majority of Americans but he actually walked away from his own vote of just a few weeks ago.
Over the years, while leveling my fair share of criticism toward Rep. Larsen, I have allowed him the fall back excuse of, ‘It’s the best we can do while we are in the minority.’ From his infamous vote on the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Bill, to his embracing of “Free” (not Fair) Trade, to his continued votes for every Iraq occupation funding measure to come to the House floor, I have held out hope that, when there came a Democratic majority, Rick would show us all his true stripes. When he joined the (slim) majority of House Democrats to vote for an Iraq funding bill that contained binding timelines for ending our occupation, I thought the corner might have been turned. However, to see him forsake that vote and simply surrender to the rhetoric of a failed George W. Bush, I realize that I have been holding out false hopes.
Some will say that Larsen was far from alone in his “capitulation vote.” To them I would simply say that those others do not represent me nor do I have the capacity to vote for or against them. Others will say that Rick has otherwise excellent credentials with the environmentalists and the Pro-Choice groups. To these folks I would simply say that there is no greater responsibility for a member of congress than the votes they cast in matters of war and peace. Rick has been able to reap the support due him for his initial vote to oppose the invasion of Iraq. The time has long since passed to end it. There he has failed.
It is time to identify a Progressive challenger and to start the hard work of unseating an entrenched incumbent. Those who would apply for the position must be ready and willing to start that job today. It will take money, determination, money, strong grassroots support, money, and did I mention money?
Interested persons may begin, if they like by responding to this post; expressing your interest in the position and allowing other interested persons to help begin the campaign to send a Progressive from the 2nd CD to DC.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
posted by Chad Shue at 9:18 AM
4 Comments:
This is Rick Larsen’s answer, why have a democrat in office when he votes against the war? Because Rick wants to be re-elected and maybe believes this was another way to pass the buck until 2008. Does Rick hope that we will forget this vote of his??? Besides all the other corporate Rick made? Like the bankruptcy bill, food labeling bill and many more!!!
Dear Friend :
More than four years after the President declared "mission accomplished", our military men and women are still in the line of fire trying to keep a lid on the Iraqi civil war.
The American people have been pushed to the brink of exhaustion by the war in Iraq . Every day I hear from constituents who are fed up with President Bush's policies. Although we don't always agree on how best to change course, I share your frustration and I will keep pushing for a new direction in Iraq .
During the last election, Democrats told the American people that we would fight for a new direction in Iraq . That is exactly what we have done. With President Bush in control of the White House, and Democrats holding less than a two-thirds majority in Congress, changing our direction in Iraq will not happen overnight. But together with my Democratic colleagues, we will keep holding President Bush's feet to the fire, we will keep holding him accountable for his policies in Iraq , and we will deliver the new direction the American people have demanded.
Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, we have made real progress toward a new direction.
Earlier this month, House Democrats tried to use the President's funding request to change our direction, end our involvement in Iraq's civil war and re-focus our efforts on fighting and killing terrorists. We passed the Iraq Accountability Act, which could just as easily been called the "President Bush Accountability Act". The President vetoed that bill. And because Democrats do not have a two-thirds majority in Congress, we failed to override the President's veto.
Next, House Democrats sent another proposal to the President to fully fund our troops for a limited amount of time, hold the President accountable for his policies and provide a new direction. But this second Iraq Accountability Act failed to pass the Senate.
The Democratic leadership in Congress has met with the Bush Administration repeatedly to try to find a compromise with accountability. But the President has threatened to veto any bill that holds him accountable for his own benchmarks for progress.
The Senate has approved a plan that includes weaker benchmarks for progress than the ones passed by the House. These benchmarks are not as strong as the ones I would have chosen. But they are a step in the right direction.
This week, I voted to pass an emergency supplemental bill that includes the benchmarks approved by the Senate. This bill is not perfect. But it does not give the President a blank check. It requires that the President report to Congress on his progress in Iraq so Congress can continue holding him accountable.
I believe that the United States needs to end our military involvement in Iraq 's civil war and re-focus our efforts on fighting and killing terrorists around the world. The President must be held accountable for his own military and political benchmarks. If the President does not meet those benchmarks, we must begin the unconditional partial withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq .
This is the message we have been sending to the President by passing two separate funding bills that held the President accountable to his own policies and forcing a change of direction. The President's opposition to these bills prevented their passage, but even with vetoes, we are beginning to see a change in direction in Iraq . This change is being forced by the steady pressure of Congress and the outrage of the American people.
Last January I proposed a military strategy worthy of the individual actions and sacrifice of our Armed Services. This strategy necessitated ending our involvement in fighting an Iraqi civil war and refocusing our efforts on fighting terrorists. We are seeing some progress in some of the following areas, but there is much more work to be done and much more pressure to be applied on the President.
This is my best assessment of the progress we have made in these six key areas in the past five months:
1. Immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq not necessary for the following missions for redeployment to other areas of need or send them home:
The president still refuses to acknowledge his failures, his inability to secure Iraq , and the failure of the Iraqi reconciliation process. But the Iraqis are beginning to realize that we will not be there forever. This is a critical step that will push the Iraqis to take responsibility for the security of their own nation. This is a direct result of pressure from Congress and the American people.
2. Investing in a diplomatic surge in the Middle East engaging all countries, including Syria and Iran, and convene an international peace conference to end the civil war in Iraq:
Pressure from the Iraq Study Group and Members of Congress have changed our diplomatic approach to engaging Syria and Iran on the Iraq war. Secretary Rice's willingness to quietly engage the two countries was a step in the right direction, but more robust engagement must be on the agenda in the future.
3. Training and equipping Iraqi military forces to fight a counterinsurgency campaign against the Iraqi-based insurgency:
We know that almost 340,000 Iraqi Security Forces are trained and equipped, but we don't know how effective the training has been or how many insurgents have infiltrated the security services. Finally the military is beginning a concerted long overdue effort to weed out commanders in these forces with sectarian and criminal agendas.
4. Embedding available trainers and special operations personnel with Iraqi military forces to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI):
Embedded Military Transition Teams in Iraq are doing a heroic job fighting terrorists, but they are still engaging in the sectarian warfare that only serves to keep a lid on an Iraqi civil war. Their efforts still need to be focused on fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq .
5. Providing personnel to secure Iraq 's borders to cut the flow of foreign fighters and weapons into Iraq :
Progress in this area is still uncertain and requires both a political and military solution. Secretary Rice's discussions with Syria on border security this month represented a dramatic change in approach.
6. Loosening our visa policies for Iraqis seeking to come to the U.S. :
We still need to do more to provide a safe place for Iraqi refugees. Congress has increased the total number of refugees allowed into the United States per year from 50 to 500, but this is still woefully inadequate.
These are all areas that focus on a military mission that will protect American national security. And in many of these areas, we are already seeing a change in direction.
Make no mistake: this is only the beginning of our work holding the President accountable for a new direction in Iraq .
Sincerely,
Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District
Chad, when do I go to work?
I have been waiting for some folks to step up and fire this DINO!
Ozy
I think Dave gives Jon a bloody nose with this article.
The centrist Democrats will hopefully come on board when they realize their futile attempts to move the Democratic leadership in the direction of peace will be of no avail. We need to get tough with these representatives! What we’re seeing here, in my opinion, is what has become the true nature of the political animal in Washington. It’s not the fact that many of them vote as they are told. The fact is, they are powerless when our government is run by money. Money is the universal language that has corrupted and distorted what the framers of our country set out for America to be.
It’s so disheartening to see 82% of the country want out of this Iraq disaster and intern see our Democrats in Congress vote overwhelmingly to keep funding the illegal occupation. Some of the “fall on their sword for a Democrat” Democrats are saying it’s only till September. But they fail to expatiate the fact that if they had not funded the war, plans would be made now for redeployment sooner rather than later.The Bush crime administration would have found funds to keep pushing this war for many more months but eventually they would run out of money and be forced to get our troops the hell out.
I find that articles written like this one are reminiscent of the Republican apologist’s attempt to spin a devious situation by spineless members of Congress into a positive light for the public.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
The country gave the Democrats the power they have today because of the constitutional crimes that Bush is perpetrating on the nation most of all is this illlegal, immoral and unwinnable disaster in the Middle East.
If the Democrats keep making these horrible concessions to loon-a tic president, they are simply going to reinforce the neocon perception that they are spineless and weak. The betrayel of the base this week of such magnitude cannot happen again! It can’t be spun into something positive. If so we are going to lose more and more voters to a third party. We cannot afford that. We need strong leadership not leadership who cave in to insanity and hypocrisy.
I am preaching to the choir again I’m sure. I sincerely hope that these centrist Democrats can see the futility of trying to reason with unreasonable people.
We must find a way to take the money out of Washington or we will get nowhere! Our Congress has excepted bribery is a way of life. We cannot allow this to continue. The Democrats voted the way they did because they were told to by the powers that be! If you ask who are the powers that be, let me mention a few; The Carlyle group, Halliburton, Boeing, Pharma and the insurance lobby. These only scratch the surface and it’s mind ripping. The international corporations own this country and they own our representatives. If the public knew how our government operated they wouldn’t believe it.
For me, the formula is simple. Take the money out of the equation. Making this happen seems to be an impossible dream!
I believe we are making strides with groups like Washington Public Campaigns. Public financing of elections and making sure there is a infrastructure in place for our elected representatives so that they need not rely on lobbyist money to fulfill their cost needs in Washington to represent their base.
if you feel like barking at the moon and raising hell, do it! However we must go beyond that in order to make a difference otherwise to hell with all.
I’m not whining. I’m screaming. We need an action plan that we can implement. We need to set goals and show accountability and progress in achieving those goals and maintaining our focus and direction.
Today was another day of infamy watching that gross caricature of a human being at Arlington supposedly honoring our troops. Those soldiers have given theultimate sacrifice in the war that he perpetrated with a lies. There is no justice to this point. He is no commander-in-chief! He’s a corproate lap puppet.
He is a liar and a despot. He has this disgraced the United States of America and dishonored those who have fought for freedom.
Now im off to Bark at the moon!
Ozy
David Sirota Responds To Alter
Alter Responds
Newsweek’s Jon Alter writes me an email in response to my earlier post today. He requested that I post it here, so I have done so in the extended entry. I have also posted my response to him. I should add for context that I actually like Alter personally, I just think he’s dead wrong and that his column this week was incredibly offensive. You make the call on who is right.
Here is Alter’s email:
Dave. Your attack on me is so intemperate and obnoxious–not to mention full of intentional distortions of my argument–that I will not dignify it by getting into a public pissing match with you. That would only give more exposure to your crude polemics and the misuse of your otherwise fine intelligence in poisonous and (for your cause) counterproductive ad hominems. As you know, I supported cutting off funding. The only issue was whether the leadership you despise should have cracked the whip and forced members to vote no, even though it was clearly a losing cause. You have refused to make the basic politics of this clear in your columns. So I won’t contribute to expanding your readership by belaboring this publicly. You are not worthy of it because you do not argue in good faith. But I would ask you to post this on your site, along with my column link, so your readers can judge for themselves if you have distorted my argument and maligned my character. P.S. Good luck with purging “bad” Democrats. It has never worked for you, FDR or anyone else who has tried it. Dick Durbin–yeah, that’s a guy we really have to throw out of the Senate!!!
Here’s my response:
You apparently decided to “report” on something you decided not to actually “report” on. Or could you not follow the very simple, well-developed, and confirmed-by-other-sources argument about the rule? That would be sad if either happened - that is, if you either knew what happened with the rule, and ignored it, or if you didn’t know about it. Either, again, would be quite sad. Let me ask you straight up - which is it? Do you not understand what happened with the procedural shenanigans? Or did you understand, and simply decide not to even mention it?
I would say it was you who was being intemperate and obnoxious in your column by potraying war opposition as only coming from “the left” and by calling those who expected Democrats to do more “juvenile.” I’m no purist here - you may recall that I helped whip progressive votes on the original supplemental.
You seem to see politics and the war as a big game, and are personally offended when others don’t see it that way and have the temerity to call into question the system by which this all happened. What’s funny, I think, is that you write me this email, and yet you don’t provide even a shred of evidence about where your arguments were supposedly “distorted” or your character “maligned” - even though my entire post actually shows exactly with data and facts where your original arguments distorted what happened in the Congress and maligned the character of people who expected Democrats to do more. Seriously - you should re-read what you wrote me - it actually sounds more incoherent than some of the crazier email I get from some readers (for instance, what in God’s name are you talking about throwing Dick Durbin out of the Senate? Get a hold of yourself).
Finally, I would remind you - when you pick a fight, as you clearly did with me with your column and its reference to my writing, you should expect to hear a response. I know that you may not be used to that being at Newsweek and all. But I think the tenor of your reaction displays exactly the kind of entitlement and arrogant, above-any-criticism attitude among the pundit class that much of America despises. I, for one, don’t feel obligated to sit there and pat you on the back when you - like some other pundits - both refuse to report on what actually happened, and then deliberately try to portray 82% of America as merely an annoying and small sect of the political “left.”
D
Erna,
Thanks for posting Rick's response/explanation. I will be dealing with that shortly in a separate post. It deserves response.
Ozy,(and many others)
The intent of this post was not to announce my candidacy to replace Larsen. My gut feeling at this time is that I am not a viable candidate for any number of reasons (that I will keep to myself at the moment)
Rather, I am hoping that there are some good folks in the 2nd CD who will step up to the plate (a couple of them suggested they might run last year). I will be ready, as should we all, to take a close look at anyone who would ask for support and be ready to help with the hard work of unseating such an entrenched incumbent.
As for the Sirota post. I think we should all be aware that, with this vote to concede quietly to the remaining two years of Bush's tyranny (and probably, in the process, the 08 election as well) the power base of the Democratic Party is going to work even harder to marginalize the pro-peace side of the party.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Post a Comment
<< Home