If they worry about Idaho, now is the time to Fight

This DailyKos post makes a case that now is the time to fight back.

That means Fighting. Back. Now. No more caving to the administration on FISA. No more Blue Dog Dems (and Kucinich) voting against healthcare for children. But most importantly: No more funding for Iraq without withdrawal deadlines.

That's what we can learn from Idaho.

Kucinich voted against SCHIP? Wha...?!? I must be out of touch with day-yo-day politics.

I know that some people make a cause out of split-the-difference centrism. Read the whole post. The people are leading the Dems kicking and screaming to more populist positions. Not ideologically liberal, but populist. Healthcare. Iraq. Without a coherent social movement, its that raw populist sentiment that can prod our preternaturally timid politicians.

Torture? I don't know. How do average voters feel about the recently released torture memos? Do they feel that our values are betrayed? or do they think head-slapping and water boarding are fraternity pranks?

Some creativity on War Policy-Tax the War

Here is a USA Today piece about using an income tax surcharge to pay for the supplemental war funding.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2% to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15% surcharge, Obey said.

This seems good policy and politics to me. Lets start paying the real costs for Bush's adventurism and then talk about supporting the troops alongside other national priorities (health care for children, anyone?).

Since its John Murtha, Who our Rep Carney has worked with in the past, sponsoring this, maybe he would endorse it as well?

Iraq, funding, and Carney

Here is a kos post about recent poll numbers about the $190 billion.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/2/42411/5200

70% of independents, 90% of democrats, and 46% or republicans do not support full funding.

Lets say the Ds did not pass this funding as a lever to force change in military policy.

Given that, I assume Rs would run ads for the next thirty years saying: "Right when the surge was producing results, the Ds showed their true colors. They ain't red white and blue, but something a lot more yellow. And that is why Iraq has been a murderous hell hole for the last thirty years."

In that political climate, how many of those voters will continue to say that Ds are "soft" on defense? I don't know, but "a bunch" seems to drive a lot of D strategizing.

Does it drive Rep Carney's? Maybe. He has always seemed more willing to militarily engage with Iraq than his more progressive supporters. If he refuses legislation for timelines, reduced funding, and other attempts to wrest military policy from the delusional White House, he should come clean. What does he know or believe that leads him to go against teh will of t eh majority of Americans?