Open Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Majority Leader Reid

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid;

This upcoming week is going to be perhaps the most important week of the 110th Congress. General Petraeus will give his report, Ambassador Crocker will likewise report; and the debate on what to do next in Iraq will begin in earnest.

So why are Democrats seemingly admitting defeat -- before the argument has even begun? Why are you essentially taking what should be a position of strength, and (by buying into the White House's spin) turning it into a position of weakness? Do you really think this is the best way to end the Iraq war, or (for that matter) the best way to convince voters to vote for Democrats in 2008?

To put it bluntly -- why are you speaking as if you are still the minority party? In all the years wandering in the minority wilderness since Newt Gingrich's dismal reign, have you truly forgotten how the majority party in Congress is supposed to act?

To say you are disappointing your base by doing so is, indeed, an understatement. You came into possession of both houses of Congress with fairly decent approval ratings at the beginning of this year. When you failed to force President Bush to end the war in Iraq in the spring, your approval ratings plummeted to below Bush's dismal ratings. Did this not worry you? Did you not poll the public to see why they had turned on you? Have you not figured out that your base deserted you because of one single issue -- Iraq?

You may think I am being hard on you. To the contrary, I have been defending your position all year long (much to the disgust of some of my readers, I might add). I predicted in January that it would take until now to effectively force Bush to end the Iraq war. Since then, time and time again I have patiently explained the vagaries of getting anything meaningful through Congress -- in the face of raging online opinion that the war should end NOW! I have been in your corner, in other words, and have gone into great detail about supermajorities and veto-proof votes and budgetary rules and political considerations. But I must admit that several things are beginning to worry me, before this week's debate has even begun.

The first is your absolute capitulation on the idea that "the 'surge' is working." I, personally, have lost count of how many Democrats have bought into this Pentagon/White House spin. As the comedian Bill Maher put it: "The phrase 'the surge is working' is working." The Pentagon arbitrarily decides what is and what is not "sectarian violence" (i.e., whether a dead Iraqi civilian found in the streets is a victim of "sectarian violence" or not, depending apparently on whether he was shot through the head from the front, or from the back), and Democrats don't even question the statistics. As Mark Twain (or maybe it was Disraeli) famously said: "There are three types of lies: a lie, a damned lie, and statistics." While it is ironic that the Pentagon is now minimizing body counts (instead of maximizing them, as they did throughout the Vietnam war), Democrats are strangely silent on the issue.

The second thing which worries me is your disgusting desperation to give in on the warrantless wiretapping issue, seemingly so you could take your month-long August vacation without delay. You threw the Fourth Amendment under a bus, and you seem to expect the public to be glad that you "only" did it for the next six months. This is pathetic. Please remember your oath to uphold and protect the Constitution the next time Republicans blindside you with such legislation. Even if it does mean your vacation may be a few days shorter. It's hard to listen to Washington politicians get adamant about condemning the Iraqi Parliament for taking August off, when you are demonstrably willing to toss out whole sections of the Bill of Rights to guarantee your own month-long respite.

On a related subject: during this extended vacation in your home districts, did you not hear the concerns of your constituents? Did they really tell you: "The best way to end the Iraq war would be to compromise with Republicans right off the bat, and water down whatever bill you pass, so that President Bush can safely ignore it and do what he wants?" Did the voters really say to you: "We mainly elect Democrats not to fight for our core values, but to compromise and be reasonable with the Republicans so that we can all just get along?" Did they honestly tell you: "The best strategy in September would be to publicly back down and admit that the other side is right -- before the fight even begins -- by throwing away your best bargaining points and all your leverage, and then just accepting whatever the congressional Republicans deign to agree to, in a "bipartisan" fashion?"

I find this hard to believe. Either the polls are lying to me, or you guys are just ignoring the public and conspiring to prove that Democrats have no backbone whatsoever. If the latter is true, this is going to have dire repercussions for you next November. You conspire at your own peril to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory... once again.

In the past month, the Bush administration has won the "framing" contest with "the 'surge' is working." You've got a lot of lost ground to make up, in other words. This doesn't mean it is impossible, but it's going to be tough. Even without Karl Rove, the White House spin machine is still obviously formidable.

Senator Ted Kennedy on CBS' Face The Nation did a great job of introducing a strong Democratic talking point -- that the American military is "being held hostage by Iraqi politicians." That's a great image, and needs repeating by many Democrats in the coming week. If, of course, and only if Democrats have learned the importance of "talking points" and "staying on message" and "framing the debate." The jury's still out on that, I have to admit.

Unfortunately, the other Sunday morning talk show Democratic guests were, shall we charitably say, less than stellar. Joe Biden did a great job outlining the GOP's position for why Congress should vote for every dollar Bush requests for Iraq, without any conditions. Senator Dianne Feinstein seemed like she needed another cup of coffee in her interview. I mean, seriously, these were the best spokespersons you could come up with, the week before the debate on Iraq begins? I would have much preferred seeing Russ Feingold or Carl Levin or Barack Obama or even Dennis Kucinich this Sunday morning... and I would be willing to bet I wasn't the only Democrat who felt this way. If you're going to lead the debate, you've got to lead with your strongest messengers, not your most ineffectual debaters.

With the vacillators the Democratic Party presented (with the exception of Kennedy, who did a great job), the message America got was: Democrats are -- before the argument even starts -- giving up totally and utterly on either using the biggest leverage we've got (war funding), or that we're giving up almost completely on the concept of a hard deadline for Bush to withdraw troops. Democrats may half-heartedly fight for a deadline to begin withdrawal -- but Democrats are also open to a compromise on a deadline for all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq, meaning we may allow Bush to decide whether an undefined amount of them stay for an undefined amount of time.

There's a wise saying that came out of Bill Clinton's political team: "'Wrong and strong' beats 'right and weak' every time." What is meant by this is that showing backbone garners respect among voters -- even if they don't agree with your stance. The simple act of fighting for what you believe in impresses even people who would never consider voting for you or your party.

If you don't grab the reins pretty soon, and start shaping the Iraq debate in language that presents your view of the situation, you are going to have pulled off a rather singular political feat: turning a wildly popular position (getting out of Iraq, which consistently polls at 60-70% approval of the American public at large) from a "right and strong" position into "right and weak." Which means you're going to lose the initiative, in a big way.

If you pass some namby-pamby: "We really think that at some point in the future, we really really should consider getting out of Iraq... when the president thinks it's a good idea" bill, with no deadlines and no threat of withholding funds for the war and no pressure on Bush whatsoever -- then the voters are going to reward you next year with defeat. Strongly anti-war Democratic primary challenges will sprout across America's Democratic safe districts like dandelions. And Ned Lamont should have already proved to you what a headache that can be.

Furthermore, the "netroots" are going to abandon you entirely -- that wellspring of campaign funds is going to run dry so fast it will shock you to your bones. Speaker Pelosi, you already face a challenger in Cindy Sheehan, and you may consider her a political gadfly at this point, but if you can't shepherd some meaningful legislation through the House in the next few weeks, you may be surprised at how popular her campaign may become. To say nothing of the rabidly anti-war sites like MoveOn.org, which may be actively supporting primary challengers across the country.

Are you really willing to throw away a Democratic majority in Congress -- and quite possibly the White House -- for the supposed benefits of appearing "bipartisan" in the next few weeks? That is the question you should be asking yourselves.

It's not that hard to get out in front of this issue. Imagine the following talking points being echoed by Democrats on every television interview in the next week:

"President Bush is putting a lot of stake in the fact that a few sheiks in al-Anbar province have temporarily decided not to kill American soldiers because we're helping arm their Sunni militias, when not a word is said by the Bush administration about the situation in Basra. Our British allies have pulled back from the city center of Basra, and the supposed 'chaos' which Republicans like to say will be the inevitable result of pulling coalition troops out has simply not happened. 90% of the violence in Basra was directed against the coalition, and once removed from the situation into a position where training of Iraqi forces can continue -- without exposing the coalition forces to sectarian attacks -- violence is down and Basra and its surrounding provinces are relatively calm. I find it hard to explain why General Petraeus is so focused on al-Anbar (which helps the Bush White House's political case), when there is a significant amount of good news from Basra. Perhaps it is because the situation in Basra does not fit into the political calculations of the White House and the Pentagon as neatly as the Sunni militia situation in al-Anbar does. The Democrats' plan for Iraq is not one of 'precipitous withdrawal' as the White House has been spinning for months, but one of reasoned redeployments of American troops so the same training mission can continue in the rest of Iraq, without exposing American troops to the brutality of the sectarian warfare happening all over Iraq. It will not result in chaos and anarchy as the Republicans have repeatedly stated, it will instead jump-start the reality of true Iraqi reconciliation and, in doing so, will pressure Maliki's government into moving towards reconciliation."

That, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, is what the American people deserve to hear. That is what we have been waiting to hear. That is why the Democratic Congress' approval ratings are in the basement. Because we have not heard it from you yet.

I warn you, if you spend the next few weeks arguing how best to acquiesce to the Republican demands over the progress of the war in Iraq, you are going to pay a heavy price in next year's elections. If you cannot stand up to a President with approval ratings hovering around (and below) 30%, then the voters are simply going to decide that your party cannot be trusted with the nation's security.

How are American citizens supposed to believe that the Democrats would be the best party to prosecute the war on Islamic terrorism if they can't even stand up to the minority Republicans in Congress?

History is watching Congress this week. So is the public at large. If you use this scrutiny to prove the Republican hypothesis that Democrats can't be trusted with the reins of power -- then congratulations, because you have successfully sabotaged the 2008 elections.

Which is a shame, because Democratic voters deserve better than this.

Please, you've got to stand up and fight this week.

Please.

Sincerely,

-- Chris Weigant

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[motamanx]

Dear Nancy Pelosi,
You are totally wrong that "impeachment proceedings will only divide this country even further". What you and the Democratic leadership is doing is proving to the American people that you have no courage, no spine, and will let the Republicans do whatever they want. Shame on you. What not proceeding with impeachment is doing is dividing the country, dividing actually the Democrat supporters away from you.

Because of this lack of logic, I have officially quit the Democratic Party. I do not want to be associated with such cowards. There is no way you can lose in 2008. You approve the president's spy program. You refuse to stop funding the war. The Democratic party is just as bad as the Republican. They are both pro-war and do not mind how many innocent people are murdered to increase their political power.

In case you care, 60% of liberals and progressives say Congress should start impeachment proceedings now!
http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

You are chasing off millions of Democratic voters, and if I were in your district and had your address, I would send this to you directly.

Respectfully,

Rowland S.

[leomoore]

I have come to think of conservative being synonymous with authoritarian and anti-liberty, but honestly, the Pelosi/Reid party has been a disgusting lesson in bait and switch. I am angrier with them than even Bush. They don't have any idea how politics works. We aren't talking about the legislative process. We are talking about politics. In politics as in life, sometimes it is better to lose publicly while standing up to the bully than to cower with hands held up in surrender. I have no say in any of this since I live in a safe Republican district in a state that threw Max Cleland out of office after Republicans labeled him unpatriotic. I have to rely on Democrats elected elsewhere to represent me. It is doubly frustrating to be dependent on Democratic representatives elected elsewhere and to see those same Democrats cowering before this most vile president.

[LizM]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on one point: ‘strong and wrong’ always seems to have the upper hand over ‘weak and right’. And, yes...showing backbone on any given stance does seem to garner respect among voters...even if said voters don’t have the first clue about what the stance means or what consequences it will effect. Unfortunately, that brand of thinking is what brought us to where we are today and, I’m afraid, what will lead us to where we’ll be tomorrow.

As for Senator Biden...he did a great job, alright...of explaining how to end this war responsibly and honorably...and the American people will disregard his leadership on this issue, and many others, at their own peril.

[LizM]

I tried to resist but I am not that strong.

First off, let me say that the Democratic Congressional leadership couldn’t lead anyone out of a wet paper bag, let alone out of the tragic mess that is Iraq.

Secondly, the truth of the matter is that President Bush is NOT going to end the war if the funding, by some freak of the democratic process, is cut off. Let me repeat...cutting off the funding will not end the war before hundreds more troops are killed because there are not enough mine-resistant vehicles to protect them.

You know what...let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that all funding is cut off. Let’s also assume that the President will NOT find funds elsewhere to continue his sad excuse for an Iraq policy. Then what? I mean, what is the plan for what would be left behind in Iraq and the region. I would dearly love to hear all about it. So far, no one who has called for the Democrats to simply “do nothing” and just not vote on any Iraq supplemental has outlined a plan to deal with what comes next. Forgive me if I have missed it.

As for Senator Kennedy’s “strong” performance, his strong Democratic talking point is nothing more than poppycock! If the American military is being held hostage to anyone or anything, it is clearly to the Bush-Cheney regime and their complete lack of a diplomatic strategy to facilitate the emergence of a sustainable political settlement in Iraq. What kind of a fantasyland are we living in if we expect a political solution to magically and spontaneously materialize as the warring Iraqi factions miraculously come together to solve their political differences? That doesn’t sound like a strategy based in anything remotely resembling reality to me...call me thickskulled.

...to be continued...damn this 350 word limit!!!

[JohnCP]

The best thing about Weigant's urgent piece, is the strength it reveals. It doesn't simply castigate the Democrat leaders, it continues to appeal to them, to stand up to the republican onslaught. If "our side" is defeated in the following conflict with the administration over the surge, we have no choice but to continue our fight. I'm not a democrat because my leaders always come through. I'm a democrat because I hold to a certain set of principles, that I don't give up on, simply because the current Dem Leadership are "mostly" (and it's all important to remember that it's most, not all of our leaders that are disappointing us) a bunch of frightenend fools. We shouldn't be a party of personalities, but of principles.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

To nancytheragingliberal and RDixon and RobertPaul -

As I was writing this, a bit of an old Bob Dylan song kept running through my head. I almost included it in the text, but I wanted to keep it on a serious tone. Anyway, here you go:

"Please Mrs. Henry, Mrs. Henry please,
I'm down on my knees
And I ain't got a dime."

Could've easily changed that to "Please Pelosi and Harry" or some such...

To disgustedcitizen -

Be my guest -- forward it to anyone you like.

To everyone -

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and support!

-CW

[RobertPaul]

Thank you for putting y(our) points across so elegantly Chris.

Maybe someone will listen.

But, you know the part that really hurts me down to my Citizen heart?

That you had to BEG to get their attention....if you did.

How very sad.

[alexa07]

The Dems also capitulated on the Iran question, making no one happy except the Israelis & their friends in Congress. The Republican war machine now will not be prevented from attacking yet another country in the Middle East, at American taxpayer expense, of course! No need to ask Congress to declare war on a country that has NOT threatened to attack us and does NOT even remotely intend to attack us!
When all branches of our govt are held hostage to outside interests,the outcome can only be grievous for all involved. Even the outsiders will suffer inevitably as backlashes can & do occur! I propose
something novel for the Dems in Congress, most particularly Ms. Pelosi. Quit working so hard for that other country that isn't the USA!

[newpantaloons]

I am so sick and tired of the Democratic talking points about how "such a slim majority", "need for bi-partisanship", "will compromise", etc., etc.,etc. Their 'bi-partisanship' is only for the fact that they want political cover. Pelosi, Reed, Hoyer, and Emmanuel are just completely terrible as leaders! Here is my formula for success for the Democrats in Congress:

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have the power to just not allow these bills to come to the floor for a vote. If (and they will) the Republicans start slandering with "they don't support our troops" and "they are emboldening the enemy", let the Democrats get out in front of this attack with language of their own. Borrow some of the same talking points that Republicans have used for the last 12 years! This is a way to defund the war without actually doing it.

Send bill after bill to the floor to stop this ILLEGAL war. Let the Republicans filibuster all they want. Talk, talk talk about "obstructionism". Let Bush veto over and over. Talk about who is supporting the troops. When Bush sends a bill to Congress, just sit on it until he concedes to something that the Democrats want. NEVER let a bill come to the floor by a Republican Congressperson. EVER! If it is a good bill, rework it in Committee and reintroduce it as a Democratic initiative. (Congresspeople get really nervous when there is no legislation introduced by them to show to the voters back home. It just might make them decide to be a little less obstructionist). This is the way the game has been played for 12 long years. This bipartisanship is bullshit! Do the Democrats really believe they won't get slimed by the Republicans no matter how nice they are??!! Payback is hell! This is how you play HARDBALL! The voters that put them into the majority are looking for some hardball!

[nopartygal]

newpantaloons - Chris

PART 1

newpantaloons - You are absolutely right! The Democrats have to look down and locate their gonads (assuming they have any...). There is only one way to play this game and if you don’t follow (or worse, don’t know) the rules, you have no business on the game board. You are wasting your constituents’ time and resources.

Chris -

You make some excellent points and your heart is in the right place, but I must disagree on two of your (probably most-cherished) points:

a. Kennedy may have made a good presentation and meant well, but his statement (or talking point: “that the American military is "being held hostage by Iraqi politicians."” is bullshit. The American military is being held hostage by our own greedy, criminal Administration and the combined ignorance, indifference, and moral laziness of the American people (where is the outrage?). My point here is Chris, that while it’s nice, and even wise, to have talking points, those talking points must be based in reality. The minute you start playing the bullshit game, you have stepped onto their (the Republicans’) playing field, they are on home turf and you are validating their game. As such, you are not only supporting their bullshit assertions by giving credence to the fairytales they are shoving down the throats of the mindless masses, you are also automatically putting yourself into the position of playing defense. And that, as we know, is a loser’s position.

b. Your al Anbar vs Basra talking point would not work for 2 reasons:

1. The premise you are offering is theoretical. As such, it already stands on shaky ground. Because of this, you would be left without a leg to stand on when the Republicans answer your “assertions”.

2. And here is how they would answer: “Yes, my esteemed colleague is very right about Basra. Basra is a perfect example of how an increased military presence...

[nopartygal]

newpantaloons - Chris

PART 2

...in the region can serve to stabilize the area in the long run and, when the area is stable - as Basra clearly is now - then troop withdrawal can begin - as it has, leaving behind a well-anchored, well balanced community, safe and happy, grateful for all we and our allies have accomplished to leave them on solid footing in their sheltered and thriving communities. Not amidst the chaos and slaughter which would have ensued, had we left the area too early, as the Democrats are proposing we do in the rest of Iraq.”

So you see, Chris, there is no room for BS, that’s their game, and their very, very good at it. The Democrats have to introduce their own game plan: TRUTH!!! Their approach must be one of attacking each and every one of their Republican opponents’ bullshit talking points forcefully and relentlessly, over and over again. They/we must be consistent, persistent, unrelenting. We must counter bullshit with facts and truth ad nauseam. It’s time the American people got a look at the other side of the coin. The real side. The Truth.

[nopartygal]

Self correction:

"...and they're very, very good at it."

(I can't believe I misspelled "they're" that way... sigh.)

[RickO]

As a MoveOn member from the beginning, I support the idea of Democractic primary challenges, even if it means losing experienced and "well-connected" members.

The 110th has already squandered an historic opportunity to halt and reverse the cancerous neo-conservative agenda. You had massive public support but the euphoria we felt after the election was all but evaporated.

You (congress) have failed to lead and I can already hear that 2000 GOP mantra becoming a central point again in 2008. Remember when Bush said "We will lead where they have failed to lead"?

Personally, I have no confidence in what will come of this upcoming debate. You might as well take another month off.

[disgustedcitizen]

Excellent! With your permission, I suggest that everyone who reads this should cut and paste it into their own letters to Pelosi and Reid. Perhaps if it hits them enough times, they might pull their heads out of the sand,(or their butts?) and take notice.

[davedave]

wwmd.

What would Murtha do?

d

[texanna]

Exactly! Can we get this sent to the Democratic Leadership and every Democratic Representative and Senator? At this point, I think I am almost angrier with the people in Congress who purport to be Democrats than with the Republicans, because the Democrats told us they understood and have consistently betrayed the trust we put in them. How in the hell did Nancy and Harry get to the position of leadership? They sure haven't lead as far as I can tell!

[RDixon]

You are not a member of AIPAC, therefore, your letter was disregarded recklessly in the same manner they do the will of the vast majority of the people who gave them the power to avoid using.

Now we see why AIPAC was so happy with the results of the last election.

[elleng]

Thanks for this! Talking points free of charge! DO IT, DEMS!

'The Democrats' plan for Iraq is not one of 'precipitous withdrawal' as the White House has been spinning for months, but one of reasoned redeployments of American troops so the same training mission can continue in the rest of Iraq, without exposing American troops to the brutality of the sectarian warfare happening all over Iraq. It will not result in chaos and anarchy as the Republicans have repeatedly stated, it will instead jump-start the reality of true Iraqi reconciliation and, in doing so, will pressure Maliki's government into moving towards reconciliation."'