Progressives were recently chagrined over the remarks of newbie California Congressman Jerry McNerney upon his return from a congressional trip to Iraq. He was elected as a progressive, anti-war Democrat, defeating a DCCC-backed candidate in the primary and Richard Pombo, the only Republican committee chair to lose re-election in resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
McNerney's election was a huge victory for the netroots, as they wrote extensively about the race and steered significant amounts of money from readers to his campaign. He was expected to be a solid anti-war vote, but he has turned out to be a mixed bag.
During the August 2007 recess, McNerney traveled to Iraq to gain firsthand knowledge of the situation and receive briefings from military officials. The Washington Post quoted McNerney upon his return, giving reason for Progressives to be concerned.
But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal.
"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me.
But the military presentations left her stunned. Schakowsky said she jotted down Petraeus's words in a small white notebook she had brought along to record her impressions. Her neat, looping handwriting filled page after page, and she flipped through to find the Petraeus section. " 'We will be in Iraq in some way for nine to 10 years,' " Schakowsky read carefully. She had added her own translation: "Keep the train running for a few months, and then stretch it out. Just enough progress to justify more time."
"I felt that was a stretch and really part of a PR strategy -- just like the PR strategy that initially led up to the war in the first place," Schakowsky said. Petraeus, she said, "acknowledged that if the policymakers decide that we need to withdraw, that, you know, that's what he would have to do. But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years.
McNerney would do well to go back home and listen to his constituents on the subject of the war in Iraq. That was the top reason he was elected.
He would also do well to consult with more senior members of his party. Maybe it is a little unreasonable to suggest this, but I think he needs a "congressional mentor." Normally, a seasoned chief of staff would fill this role until a member became accustomed to the demands of office. However, McNerney has his own impressionable newbie chief of staff.
Perhaps Jan Schakowsky will take McNerney under her wing and show him the way. Otherwise McNerney could end up on the wrong side of the biggest and most important issue of our time.
Follow Lane Hudson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tlanehudson
Is he kidding or just delusional?
What's acceptable to the Republicans is more war. And another war. And more war.
He needs more than a mentor - he needs a babysitter and a muzzle.
Actually he was elected because the constituents were sick of Big Dick Pombo. It's not a liberal district by any means, and no one should be surprised if McNerney takes some positions unpopular with progressives. He's still a vast improvement over Pombo.
Before that, I called the office of Richard Pombo (whom McNerney defeated) to disagree with his war stance, but at least I got a letter from his office.
Should we have negotiated with the energy traders at Enron to end blackouts in California?
No, we (eventually) hauled their bosses into court.
This crop of leaders delegated by Bush have been miserable failures... primarily for their failure to challenge the flawed orders they were following. By showing complacency, by putting career over country, the Generals have proven they don't deserve a seat at the table.
"Listening to the commanders on the ground" has been Bush's justification when all along he's fired any commander that wouldn't follow his orders. Bush has been listening to the commanders regurgitate what he told them to say.
McNerney would do well to recognize our civilian leadership created the mess, and the dog and pony show he was treated to in Iraq was designed and scripted in Washington.
Listening to the regurgitators for advice on how to move forward is no different than letting Bush dictate the terms. Needless to say, Bush has been wrong from the beginning and can't be allowed to continue to keep digging when we're in a hole.