When Will the Innocent Bystander Fable Stop?

I just finished up an appearance on Warren Olney's national radio show (you will be able to find the archived recording here probably in a few hours). On it, I debated (among others) former DLC strategist Ed Kilgore, who quite literally regurgitated the Innocent Bystander Fable, word for nauseating word. He claimed that Democrats in Congress need to find total unity to do anything to stop the war, that they don't have 60 votes, and oh the Congress is so closely divided, yadda yadda. It is a false and misleading meme, and I called him on it, telling him that the Innocent Bystander Fable is deliberately dishonest (and by the way, this subject is going to be the major topic of my next nationally syndicated newspaper column, out Friday).

Kilgore first feigned outrage that someone would call a factual lie "deliberately misleading" (and again folks, claiming Democrats have no power to stop the war or that they need any more than 41 Senate votes to stop the war is a lie - and a deliberate one coming from people who are "experts" and who thus know precisely how the Congress works). He then was forced to admit that yes, in fact, it is correct that if Democrats put together 41 Senate votes for a filibuster or - perhaps even easier - if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to bring a blank check war funding bill to the floors of their respective chambers, Democrats would be able to ultimately stop the war. But while the Democrats' rhetoric is certainly different than Republicans, their actions really are not. The only thing they have consistently done when it comes to Iraq is try to pass the buck, and worse, successfully pass blank checks (like today's new one).

Now, Ed and all the other brilliant Democratic "strategists" in Washington who have gotten us to this disastrous point would counter that polls aren't clear on whether the public really supports Congress using its power of the purse to stop the war. I agree, the polls aren't - but those polls are a snapshot in a vacuum.

To date, there has been absolutely no concerted campaign by Democrats or even by the major media-focused antiwar organizations in Washington to educate the public on why Congress using its power of the purse is the responsible way to end the war. No, everyone inside the 50-square mile radius of Washington, D.C. - politicians, activists, reporters, pundits, everyone - wants us to believe that Democrats are just Innocent Bystanders, that they have no power to do anything, and that, in fact, the Constitution does not include Article 1, Section 9 specifically stating "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

It is a lie being perpetrated on the American public - and if folks in Washington are confused about why the public is so disgusted with Congress and with Democrats, it is because the public has figured out when it is being lied to. We got burned once by the WMD claims - we aren't getting fooled again. The public understands the message in this YouTube video:

What this all shows is the mindset of the Democratic apparatus in Washington, D.C. They react to polls. They don't believe in actually spending political capital to move polls on issues - they really only believe in spending political capital on moving polls on individual candidate and party approval ratings - but again, not on issues. They react to snapshots in a vacuum, veering one way and then veering another way, and then they have the nerve to somehow wonder why the public thinks they stand for nothing.

How many more Americans have to die before Democrats stop pushing the Innocent Bystander Fable and pretending they can't do anything? How hated does the Democratic Party have to be by the public before Democrats stop listening to their Washington "strategists," muster the tiniest shred of courage and use the constitutional power they were given on Election Day 2006?

Cross-posted from Working Assets

Comments

[larry278]

This fairy tale will end on election day 2008. While nobody ever went broke under estimating the intelligence of the American people-there are stunning reverses in American politics. The election of 2008 looks like it's going to be a pissing contest involving two groups of unworthy, blind, pathological liars. No voter can believe or trust either party. The best persons won't win for only the worst of a bad lot will be running. Politics is like that some times.

[ajax2]

Dems are afraid that they don't have 40 votes in the Senate. Look at the votes for the attack on speech and Moveon. Just today, 20 something Dems gave Bush the OK to kill Iranians. In reality Republicans still have a super majority,,,,,,,shhh.

[DatelessNerd]

The Democratic Party has the votes to force a change in policy. That message can't be repeated often enough.

If Democrats can't muster 41 votes in the Senate, the party itself is worthless and must be scrapped.

The time is NOW, not November 2008!

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Dave Sirota for President.

Between the Dem strategists and the republicons like bill cristol, I don't see how we're going to get out of the ditch dumbya drove us into.

Until we get public financing of elections, this kind of bull will continue. The "washington party" must be abolished.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Unlike you, the Dems on The Hill think that they're being slick. The Repubs give them enough cover to create plausible deniability with their constituents and they're more than happy to take advantage of the situation. They feel that gives them cover with the left, and that the middle (or so they've been told) actually appreciates it when they act "strong". They get to have it both ways, and you want to have them give that up just for "a matter of principal" (that being the phrase they use instead of "saving lives")? They'll scream about the Repubs being "obstructionist", and give silent thanks for a situation that (to date, at least) gives them everything they really want at no real political cost.

And you sure as hell can feel lucky if you see even an ounce of bravery among the lot of them (a slight exaggeration since about 25% of them seem to vote the "Democratic way" on the hard issues). Sadly, though, they firmly believe that they take a smaller risk with "their seat" this way than would be the case if they really worked to get us out of the mess.

Here's a thought. The reason why the U.S. doesn't still have troops in Viet Nam is because the people would not allow the government to do anything other than leave. We were in the streets then. We're not in the streets now, and it looks like someone either needs to find a more visible way of organizing or we'll have to go back to the old way of getting the job done.

[IronDragon]

I admit to sometimes having a hard time keeping my temper. I also admit that this lying bunch of scalawags in Congress has made me as hot under the collar as I recall ever being. They have been bought; there can be no other answer.

[altohone]

Thanks Dave.

It can't be repeated often enough.

The DLC wants to keep funding the war, and pretending they have no choice.

Their DLC candidate Hillary promises to maintain the occupation, while claiming she'll end the war.

Their media ignores the debate and inherent contradictions to keep the public uninformed.

The oil/MIC/media establishment has decided Iraq will be occupied for 50 years like Korea, and their shills in Washington will spin both ways to make it happen.

[kms34786]

I have to agree that the Democratic Leadership is displaying a shocking amount of hubris in the handling of this war.

First of all - Where is the declaration of war?

Second, Where is the political will to do what is right?

The only thing that saves the Democrats is there is no legitimate threat to their position as the opposition party. If there was another real alternative, they would be out with the Republicans. Politics has turned to crap and they all have it all over their hands and they are all gagging on the smell.