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?

YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT on local candidates seeking CSCC endorsement

Here's your chance to share your thoughts about the candidates we saw at the September 6th meeting.

Three local candidates are seeking CSCC endorsement. They are:

John Showers, incumbent candidate for Union County Commissioner
Jim Buck, candidate for East Buffalo Township Supervisor
Fred Greenawalt, candidate for Kelly Township Supervisor

The endorsement vote will conclude at CSCC's October 11th meeting. We will send an e-ballot at least one week before the meeting. All voting members (those who have donated $20 or more to the organization in 2007) may vote either by e-mail or in-person at the meeting (Oct. 11, 7:30, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg).


Here's some information to guide you as your think about this endorsement process:

ENDORSEMENT PHILOSOPHY

from CSCC's by-laws

13.2.1) The debate about whether or not to endorse a candidate should be guided by the question of whether or not it would tend to further CSCC’s philosophy and mission as stated in section 1 of these by-laws.

Here is Section 1:
1.1) Philosophy: CSCC seeks to empower its members to participate in the democratic process in order to realize our shared, progressive vision of a society that is stronger, freer and more just.

1.2) Mission: To that end, CSCC will help to recruit, train and elect local, state and federal candidates who share our progressive vision.


NOTES
All three of these candidates appeared and took questions at the Sept. 6 CSCC meeting.
All three also appeared at the CSCC land use forum back in March.

We invite you to SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS about these candidates through this public blog.

W is now 0-3 in making historical analogies for Iraq occupation

The following commentary is the work of John Peeler. I'm posting it here on his behalf. For those keeping score, Bush has tried analogizing the Iraq occupation to WWII, Vietnam and now Korea. He's 0 for 3. Will Greneda be next?

Grasping at Straws:

Iraq and the Korean Analogy

John Peeler

President Bush has recently been arguing that our mission in Iraq ought to be seen as equivalent to our maintenance of troops in South Korea for more than fifty years. That he would resort to such a pathetic analogy is a measure of his desperation to lock in American commitment to a war that has lost the support of the people.

The decision to put American troops in South Korea was to defend an established government in response to a massive invasion from North Korea. It was in the strategic context of the early Cold War and the prevalent doctrine of containment of Communist expansion. The war in Iraq was an invasion BY US of another country, for the purpose of overthrowing a government objectionable to us, and replacing it with one more to our liking.

Although American troops carried the major burden in the Korean War, the defense of South Korea was conducted under United Nations authorization. The United States failed to get such authorization for invading Iraq in 2003 (in contrast, both the 1991 expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of its Taliban government, were UN-authorized).

The core of Bush’s argument is that since the Korean Armistice of 1953, the United States has maintained a military presence in South Korea for more than fifty years, to deter renewed attacks from the North. It is asserted that we should expect a similar long-term commitment in Iraq. In South Korea, though, our continued presence has been steadily supported by popular majorities and by a succession of increasingly democratic governments. In Iraq, all available public opinion surveys show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, regardless of sect or ethnicity, want us out, now. Some elements of the political elite and the government obviously want us to stay, because we put them in power and they would have to leave with us if we left.

It is of course important to remember that South and North Korea were client states set up by the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively, after World War II, and the failure to unify them was a reflection of the Cold War (very much like East and West Germany or North and South Vietnam). Neither the South Korean regime nor that of the North was much more than a puppet in 1950, when war broke out. Over time, South Korea has become a prosperous industrial democracy.

Bush argues that Iraq could evolve in a similar way. There is a remote chance that he will be proven right, but the realities of a country divided along ethnic and religious lines, and immersed in a region suffering enormous, violent conflicts, justify extreme skepticism about Iraq’s democratic prospects.

Our continued presence in South Korea is intended to deter attacks by North Korea. In Iraq, notwithstanding overdrawn assertions of a threat from Iran, the fundamental mission is, and would remain, to protect Iraqis we favor from those we oppose. Those we favor will be a small minority. The longer we stay, the more the majority of Iraqis will oppose us. This is not a posture we will want to maintain for fifty years. We would be occupying a hostile country.

Amusing use of media and consumer tropes

This youtube clip is spot on in its skewering of the spin and marketing approach to discussion of the war and the "surge."


Enjoy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqaA4-gz58I

A few lessons learned

Thanks to the 25 (or so) people who came out for the CSCC meeting last Thursday (9/6/07). Thanks also to John Showers (incumbent running for Union County Commissioner), Jim Buck (candidate for East Buffalo Township Supervisor), and Fred Greenawalt (candidate for Kelly Township Supervisor)--who came and took our questions. Special thanks to Eric Epstein who came from Harrisburg to talk about the politics of energy deregulation and what to do next.

Among the lessons learned, from my perspective: don't assume there's no need for air conditioning in September in Pennsylvania. The room at the Baptist church in Lewisburg (more people to thank!) worked fine for our group, but air conditioning or a few fans would have been a good idea. Eric Epstein said that he's been in some hot churches, but none hotter than that room.

There was also a big lesson to be learned the kind of presentation we heard. In the Q&A several people asked a variation on the question, "What should we do?" For Eric Epstein, the answer seems to do everything right now starting with calling your legislators and asking them to extend the rate caps. Though he acknowledged that much of what he shared was "Inside Baseball"--the stuff that the insiders know about public hearings, legislative process, etc.--he didn't seem to appreciate how far removed from our experience his experience is. We as a group are still talking about incremental steps to try to build a coalition and reframe big issues; he's focused on trying to do the small and the big things all at once, from keeping poor people from having their electricity or gas cut off in the middle winter to influencing big policy decisions. For someone who's been extremely active in politics for 30 years, it's probably hard to imagine not being well-informed on public issues of all sorts.

I thought the most far-reaching insight was his observation that the environmentalists and alternative fuels advocates have lost interest in protecting the poor from the whims of the large power companies now that they have funding for what they want to do ($100 million split five ways, I believe he said.). In effect, a coalition has started to split, and it plays to the advantage of the already powerful energy companies (who got a lot of what they wanted).

In short, I learned that I have a lot to learn, from learning the definition of "stranded costs" and the diffference between PPL and PP&L to understanding the way the regulatory commissions work (and their names and acronyms).

Loren