Dems Should Walk Away

According to the Washington Post, Harry Reid is again 'negotiating' with Senate Republicans about ways to end the nightmare on Baghdad Street often referred to as 'the war in Iraq' (i.e., it's not a 'war'--it's a burned-out military occupation). What's up for negotiation this time? You guessed it: Bush wants $50 billion more for Iraq. Apparently, Republicans are willing to sit down and talk about legislation to get out of Iraq, with just a few conditions: they refuse to use the words 'deadline' or 'timetable' or 'withdrawal.' In other words, the Republicans are happy to negotiation with Democrats about ending the war on Iraq, but refuse to allow any of the words Americans use to talk about ending a war.

Now, I ask myself: would I sit down at the negotiating table if the opposition put forward that kind of condition as their opening position? Let me think...

Nope.

'Bad Faith' Republicans

I would have to be an idiot to think I was 'negotiating' if the opposition refused to use words that allow us to actually talk about the subject at hand. I would not sit down given that condition because it would not be a negotiation if I did. It would be a bad faith manipulation. To sit down would be to concede first, negotiate later. And if you concede firsts, there is no need to negotiation. So I would walk away. And Dems should, too.

But just to make this point clear enough, I've assembled a list of some common, everyday negotiations to see what they would look like if they were rigged from the start they same way as the Senate negotiations on Iraq.

Read the following situations and decide whether you would sit down at the table or walk away (***answer key included below).

Sit Down or Walk Away?

1. You want to buy a house and call the seller to negotiate the price. The seller says, "I'd be happy to talk with you on the condition that we do not discuss the house or the price." Should you sit down or walk away?

2. You want to ask your girlfriend's father for her hand in marriage. Her father says, "I'd be happy to talk with you on the condition that we do not discussion marriage or my daughter." Should you sit down or walk away?

3. You want to buy a car from dealer and you want to get the best deal possible. The dealer says, "I'd be happy to talk to you a deal on the condition that we do not use the word car, price or delivery." Should you sit down or walk away?

4. You want a cab driver to take you to the airport, but you do not want to pay too much. The driver says, "I'd be happy to talk to you about the fare on the condition that we do not talk about money or meters or fees." Should you sit down or walk away?

5. You want to order a sandwich in a restaurant, but you want to build your own rather than order one as listed on the menu. The waiter says, "I'd be happy to take your sandwich order on the condition that you do not talk about bread, meat, cheese, vegetables, condiments or plates." Should you sit down or walk away?

6. You want to go to the dentist, but you want to make sure you get an appointment that does not conflict with your work schedule. The receptionist says, "I'd be happy to talk to you about an appointment on the condition that we do not talk about days of the week or times." Should you sit down or walk away?

7. You want the plumber to come out and fix your leaking toilet, but need him to come right away and not charge too much money. The plumber says,"I'd be happy to talk to you about fixing your leak on the condition that we do not talk about when I will come to your house, how long it will take to do the job, and how much it will cost." Should you sit down or walk away?

8. You want a loan from a bank for $50,000 to start a new business in a month. The banker says, "I'd be happy to talk to you about a loan on the condition that we not talk about business, money, interest rates, penalties, commissions, loan amounts, or dispersal dates." Should you sit down or walk away?

9. You want to buy 4 boxes of cookies from the Girl Scout standing at your front door, but you want to know what kinds of cookies are left and how much they cost. The Girl Scout says, "I'd be happy to talk to you about your order on the condition that we do not talk about cookies or prices." Should you sit down or walk away?

10. You are the Democratic majority leader in the Senate and you want to craft legislation that will end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring American forces home. Your Republican counterpart says, "I'd be happy to talk about ending the occupation in Iraq and bringing our soldiers home on the condition that we do not talk about withdrawal, deadlines or time lines." Should you sit down or walk away?

Some of these might be tough choices, so here is an answer key:

***Answer key:

1. walk away

2. walk away

3. walk away

4. walk away

5. walk away

6. walk away

7. walk away

8. walk away

9. walk away

10. walk away (duh)

What do all of these potential 'negotiations' have in common? They are not really negotiations! They are all bad faith situations because the opposition has set conditions that make it impossible for the negotiation to go forward: they have refused to allow discussion of the very thing up for discussion.

In this situation--when the opposition has refused to allow discussion of what you need to negotiation--the choice is to site down and concede or to walk away and accept your best alternative to a negotiated solution.

On the so-called negotiations between Harry Reid and the Senate Republicans, Reid should not only refuse to sit down until Republicans take all ludicrous pre-conditions off the table, but also tell the media and the country that he is 'walking away' until the Republicans stop rigging a 'bad faith' negotiation.

'We are walking away.'

'The Republicans are showing bad faith.'

The conversation should not even begin about giving Bush $50,000,000,000 more for Iraq until the Senate Republicans first remove all conditions for their negotiating on Iraq.

Every Democrat should walk away--every single one--until every single Senate Republican is willing to use every word in the English language in a discussion about finding the best way to get out of Iraq.

One Senate Republican gives a press conference condemning 'time tables' or 'deadlines'--walk away.

The President, his inner circle and the loyal media pundits who echo mindlessly whatever Cheney tells them to say--they can blather on all they want. But the Senate Republicans must stand down from any pre-conditions on talking about withdrawal or they negotiation is off.

And when the Dems walk away from table, what should they be walking to--what is the alternative to sitting down with bad faith Republicans?

The alternative is to walk away from the table and right into the living rooms of the American public who voted for the Democrats in 2006 so that the occupation in Iraq would be brought to an end by the new Congressional majority.

The alternative is to talk to the media instead of talking to the Republicans. This is a holiday weekend, so Americans will be watching lots of television and listening to lots of radio. Democrats should go on the air all weekend and tell the American people that the Republicans are talking in bad faith--that the Republicans are refusing to stand up to President Bush and Vice President Cheney and begin the process of getting out of Iraq.

For Senate Dems to do anything less is to concede defeat before the negotiations even begin.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman

Comments

[LizM]

If anyone thinks that the Democratic leadership in Congress is capable of leading anyone out of a wet paper bag, let alone out of the tragic mess that is Iraq, then get ready for a very long occupation.

Unless Democrats and Republicans, alike, start supporting the only strategy that has any hope of ending this war and of bringing US troops home without leaving chaos behind or the need to return at a later date (a.k.a. the Biden strategy), time may run out for a political solution and the best hope will be for the containment of the crisis to Iraq and the avoidance of an unpredictable regional conflict.

'Make Hope and History Rhyme'...B­iden/Hagel 2008 - It's written in the stars

[gro]

If lies were the basis of the Iraq war, how can anyone believe anything this WH has said about Iraq since then?
As we get ready to commit more war crimes by attacking another sovereign nation without cause, elected Democrats are as culpable as Republicans. Accessories to a crime can tesify all they want about dishonesty or 'bad faith', but the law will still hold them accountable.

[researcher]

the demos wont walk away things are going just like they planned if they can keep this war going into nov 2008 they think they can win it all.

how do you spell backfire.

[Ani]

Instead of singing Nancy Sinatra's, "These boots are made for walking," the most effective way to reach our representatives is to write them letters. Be courteous. Don't tell them you think they're stupid or incompetent (even if that's precisely what you think). Tell them in a reasoned and articulate way how you'd like them to vote on such-and-such bill, or how you hope they'll address such-and-such issue. Sign your letter politely, put a stamp on the envelope, and mail the thing. You'll get a response (albiet a form response sometimes), but your wishes will be noted in your representative's Big Book of Wishes. Write your Blue Dog Reps. Write your Republican Reps. Keep sending your nice, polite letters. Then, send letters to the MSM. Ask them to present truthful reporting. Ask them to knock off the salacious stuff because your children are listening. Remind them politely that you'll be writing their advertisers. Then send letters to the folks who want us to buy our products and tell them you'll only buy items from people who wisely choose their advertising markets.

I could go on and on. My point is that we need to WRITE the folks who we think have power over us. If enough Americans were to flood the offices of our representatives, our news sources, their advertisers, et al., our message will be heard. In this country now controlled by corporations, aren't we the ones with the money they want to have in their pockets? Talk with money in your hands, and quite possibly, you might be heard.

Is anyone with me?

[Tennessean]

Americans WANT OUT of this war. The polls are resounding at 70%+; even the troops have started to speak out in exasperation and exhaustion: GET US OUT OF HERE.

Stop the money. Stop selling us out; stop selling the troops out. Demand that Republicons put withdrawal strategies on the table or refuse to collude in the crime any longer.

[Hastings]

You people just don't get it. The Democracts in Congress don't care about Iraq. It is nothing more than a partisan wedge issue they have been using to oppose President Bush. The bottom line is that they are just using Iraq to whore for money and votes. They know if they are really successful with their defeatest stance on Iraq they will be toast for years to come.. All you are hearing from the Democracts is a lot of sound and fury signifing nothing. The surge will continue untill the end of 2008. By that time the political situation in Iraq will have settled down. George Bush will leave office with positive poll numbers of around 52% and will go down in history as a courageous visionary when it comes to Iraq. At some point in time you folks are going to have to admit that once again you are on the wrong side of history.
I think the lightbulb will go off when Hillary Clinton kicks you lefties to the curb in an attempt to draw moderates voters away from the Republicans.

[SolarPowerGuy]

Hear hear! Give 'em hell, Jeffrey!

Because you know that Harry won't.

[GeorgiaOrwell]

The following is a letter response from Patrick Leahy to me regarding his stance (et al) on BushCo impeachment. Seems to show that Dems just don't listen to "the people." (I know, what's the alternative?)

Dear Ms. Orwell:

Thank you for contacting me about the Bush Administration. I , too , share the frustration and anger of many Vermonters. I have strongly objected to a number of the Administration's policy objectives and am ready to restore checks and balances and close oversight of the Administration. I continue to work to counteract many of their harmful policies, from the misguided policy in Iraq , to environmental rollbacks, to public corruption at the highest levels of our government. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to push for aggressive oversight into many of these issues, including the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys and the warra ntless wiretapping program. I will focus my attention on such issues as ending the war in Iraq , protecting the needs of our veterans, addressing the crisis of global warming, and providing health care to all of our citizens.

As the Administration and Congress remain divided on many issues, I will look for ways to bring people together to make progress on issues facing the nation. Impeachment proceedings would not only compromise the ability of Congress to address the many issues that face our nation, but the outcome of an impeachment proceeding is uncertain. Congress must set priorities to accomplish the most important tasks that the American people agree need to be accomplished. Thank you again for contacting me.

[actionnotwords]

I think this could be handled with the same tone of immaturity the Repubs show by their refusal to use the words "deadline", "timetable", or "withdrawal": agree to their terms for the "negotiation", and then begin to ask them about the "schedule" of our "departure" from Iraq.

Kidding, of course - I hate it when THEY do things like that!

[BeyondPopper]

This is the same way the Bushies approach international negotiations.

First, the other side agrees to do everything the Bushies want them to do. Then, the Bushies will be willing to talk to them.

Great way to be successful at the negotiation table, and we all know how much Bush values success. Since it's something he's never experienced, it must be valuable.

[cylindar]

The Dems suck. I am really angry at what read is intimating. What is wrong with these guys and gals in Washington? Are they really that stupid?

[BuzzingAlong]

"The alternative is to talk to the media instead of talking to the Republican­s."

Which media would this be?

The likes of Chris Wallace, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Bill O'Reilly, Brian Williams, Sean Hannity, Brian Ross, Larry King, George Stephanopoulos, Katie Couric, David Gregory, Matt Lauer?

How about the tools on PBS and NPR?

[Lemeritus]

Buzzing, I think you might be a little unnecessarily pessimistic about the media (then again... how many times have I watched Chris Wallace and Tim Russert roll over and play dead as a deer along a Colorado highway?)

The alternative, however, MUST be to talk to the media FIRST because the best tool is to OWN the dialogue. This is what the Dems (liberals, progressives, whatever) constantly fail to do. For example, "We're not voting to give the executive additional unconstitutional powers to eavesdrop on the American people", or "We're not authorizing additional funds for the Iraq invasion because the American people have given us a mandate to find a way out of the war.'

A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but so does shit smell to high heaven -- we ought to start calling what comes out of the administration by its proper name. Start handing out sound bites like hamburger to the hounds, and the media will come around.

[mamacat]

The latest spin seems to be "blame the Democrats. They haven't succeeded in stopping Bush's war, so it must be their fault that we are still in it."
Neo-con spin got us into this war, we will need truth and honesty to get us out.

[Lemeritus]

We need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that the "liberals" won control of the Congress in 2006.

Here, for example, is a list of Blue Dog Democrats (or, more commonly, Democrats in Name Only) in the House of Representatives:
Mike Arcuri, NY-24
Joe Baca, CA-43
John Barrow, GA-12
Melissa Bean, IL-8
Marion Berry, AR-1
Sanford Bishop, GA-2
Dan Boren, OK-2
Leonard Boswell, IA-3
Allen Boyd, FL-2
Dennis Cardoza, CA-18
Christopher Carney, PA-10
Ben Chandler, KY-6
Jim Cooper, TN-5
Jim Costa, CA-20
Bud Cramer, AL-5
Lincoln Davis, TN-4
Joe Donnelly, IN-2
Brad Ellsworth, IN-8
Gabrielle Giffords, AZ-8
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-20
Bart Gordon, TN-6
Jane Harmon, CA-36
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, SD-At Large
Baron Hill, IN-9
Tim Holden, PA-17
Steve Isreal, NY-2
Nick Lampson, TX-22
Tim Mahoney, FL-16
Jim Marshall, GA-3
Jim Matheson, UT-2
Mike McIntyre, NC-7
Charlie Melancon, LA-3
Mike Michaud, ME-2
Dennis Moore, KS-3
Patrick Murphy, PA-8
Collin Peterson, MN-7
Earl Pomeroy, ND-At Large
Mike Ross, AR-4
John Salazar, CO-3
Loretta Sanchez, CA-47
Adam Schiff, CA-29
David Scott, GA-13
Heath Shuler, NC-11
Zack Space, OH-18
John Tanner, TN-8
Gene Taylor, MS-4
Mike Thompson, CA-1
Charlie Wilson, OH-6

[Lemeritus]

Now let's open our pretty 2006 Election Gift Box and see what we got for freshmen representatives:
Harry Mitchell, D-AZ
Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ*
Jerry McNerney – D-CA
Ed Perlmutter, D-CO
Joe Courtney, D-CT
Christopher Murphy, D-CT
Kathy Castor, D-FL
Tim Mahoney, D-FL*
Ron Klein, D-FL
Hank Johnson, D-GA
Mazie Hirono, D-HI
Phil Hare, D-IL
Joe Donnelly, D-IN*
Brad Ellsworth, D-IN*
Baron Hill, D-IN*
Bruce Braley, D-IA
Dave Loebsack, D-IA
Nancy Boyda, D-KS
John Yarmuth, D-KY
John Sarbanes- D-MD
Tim Walz, D-MN
Keith Ellison, D-MN
Paul Hodes, D-NH
Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH
Albio Sires, D-NJ
Yvette Clarke, D-NY
John Hall, D-NY
Kristen Gillibrand, D-NY*
Michael Arcuri- D-NY*
Heath Shuler, D-NC*
Charlie Wilson, D-OH*
Betty Sutton, D-OH
Zack Space, D-OH*
Jason Altmire, D-PA
Joe Sestak, D-PA
Patrick Murphy, D-PA*
Chris Carney, D-PA*
Steve Cohen, D-TN
Nick Lampson, D-TX*
Peter Welch, D-VT
Steve Kagen, D-WI

Those "starred" representatives are members of the Blue Dog Coalition, usually from very conservative districts.

We need to reach the reachable and put pressure where possible on those office-holders who need support or can be bent to constituent will.

It does us no good to sing the blues.

[laocoon]

I have argued for a long time that the right is not acting in good faith. Authorize, for example, war powers and you can never again criticize how those powers have been used. Bad Faith. I am not inclined to agree with anything from the right even if it seems correct or reasonable. Once you agree it will have unreasonable and unpredictable implications on all subsequent issues that can be thought of as being in the same universe. Bad Faith.