Obama and Anti-War Democrats

Days ago, a warning shot from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue landed with a thud on Capitol Hill, near some recent arrivals in the House. The political salvo was carefully aimed and expertly fired. But in the long run it could boomerang.

As a close vote neared on a supplemental funding bill for more war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "the White House has threatened to pull support from Democratic freshmen who vote no." In effect, it was so important to President Obama to get the war funds that he was willing to paint a political target on the backs of some of the gutsiest new progressives in Congress.

But why would a president choose to single out fellow Democrats in their first congressional term? Because, according to conventional wisdom, they're the most politically vulnerable and the easiest to intimidate.

Well, a number of House Democrats in their first full terms were not intimidated. Despite the presidential threat, they stuck to principle. Donna Edwards of Maryland voted no on the war funding when it really counted. So did Alan Grayson of Florida, Eric Massa of New York, Chellie Pingree of Maine, Jared Polis of Colorado and Jackie Speier of California.

Now what?

Well, for one thing, progressives across the country should plan on giving special support to Edwards, Grayson, Massa, Pingree, Polis and Speier in 2010. If we take the White House at its word, they may find themselves running for re-election while President Obama withholds his support -- in retaliation for their anti-war votes.

But it's not enough to just play defense. We also need to be supporting -- or initiating -- grassroots campaigns to unseat pro-war members of Congress.

In the Los Angeles area, the military-crazed and ultra-corporate Congresswoman Jane Harman will face the progressive dynamo Marcy Winograd in the Democratic primary next year.

Harman's vote for the latest war funding was predictable. But dozens of Democrats with longtime anti-war reputations also voted yes. Among the most notable examples are Oregon's Peter DeFazio and Washington's Jim McDermott, who apparently found their antiwar constituencies in Eugene and Seattle to be less persuasive than the White House chief of staff.

"White House aides worked the halls during the hours before the vote, and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called some lawmakers personally," McClatchy news service reports. "DeFazio, who was undecided and wound up voting yes, said he talked to Emanuel by phone for about five minutes as Obama's top aide explained the administration's strategy in the war on terror."

This is a crucial time for anti-war activists and other progressive advocates to get more serious about congressional politics. It's not enough to lobby for or against specific bills -- and it's not enough to just get involved at election time. Officeholders must learn that there will be campaign consequences.

When progressives challenge a Democratic incumbent in a primary race, some party loyalists claim that such an intra-party contest is too divisive. But desperately needed change won't come to this country until a lot of progressive candidates replace mainline Democrats in office.

On behalf of his war agenda, the president has signaled that he's willing to undermine the political futures of some anti-war Democrats in Congress. We should do all we can to support those Democrats -- and defeat pro-war incumbents on behalf of an anti-war agenda.

Comments

[raker]

I reject the facile and not quite honest "anti-war Democrats." It suggests a thoughtless, knee-jerk "anti" in the same way the Republicans are the party of NO about every Democratic initiative. We despise the occupation of Iraq, not because we're latter day flower children, but because this particular occupation is colossally immoral and inhuman.

[jmpurser]

If we can't afford health care reform in this country then we need to haul our troops home ASAP. And for that matter we need to tell the IMF to take a hike as well.

HURRAY for the anti-war Democrats who seem to have a CLUE what being a Democrat is all about. President Obama got this one wrong.

[butterfliesblossom]

Political philosophy is changing, we may find ourselves with many more progressives next term. We need a new party or we need another way to change government.

Let's think outside the box. Albert Einstein once stated that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The fundamental problem with Congress is the following: For someone to be successful politician, they usually have to obtain the backing of either the Democrats or Republicans and/or have backing of lobbyist and other special interest groups. For the politician to remain in Congress he must please those that put him there.

What Congress needs is redesigning. In my opinion, that would help improve consumer confidence more than anything.
Here’s an idea let’s vote Congress men/women in by utilizing modernize technology. I think all campaigns and votes should be held similar to reality shows. Every season we are presented with a new set of candidates, they are given challenges, their history is dug into, their past achievements clearly represented and every new season we vote candidates into Congress by popular vote.

This would solve three major problems: 1) the cost of campaigning 2) the non bi-partanship currently in Congress and 3) problems with taking campaign funds from special interest groups. Different, definitely; but, here’s the Catch 22, guess who would have to make it law. That’s right, our non-functioning government.

[oxi]

"We need a new party or we need another way to change government."

What good will a new party do? They will be bought out like the rest of them!

We need a new government that respects the Constitution and does not steal anything from the Bill of Rights that are in place to protect us from the federal government!

[Nonamnesiac]

Although the author sounds good and means well, the task he suggests is too daunting and the benefits much too limited for the amount of money and energy that will be required. There are only 30 real progressives in the House. Only 30 Representatives in the House voted against Obama's and Pelosi's cowardly, Bush-clone, supplemental appropriations bill to continue Obama's war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American people are still majoritarian supporters of committing war crimes in wars of blatant gunboat diplomacy. For passing the supplemental war appropriation, Obama should be impeached and removed as should Pelosi and the rest of the Dems who were voted into office to end the war.

Obama is actually pursuing a more warmongering policy in the Middle East than his war criminal predecdessor.

[jhamm1]

So much for the "end of politics as usual".

[marignymitch]

Thank goodness some Democrats on the Hill still have a conscience. Bless 'em.

[oxi]

So much for thr anti-war democrats! What a bunch of liers and hippocrits!

Throw them out next election, all of them that voted yes!

[Coinyer101]

I think it's time for an Anti-War Czar........,

Kucinich?