Obama and Anti-War Democrats

[proud2BlibKansan]

Thursday 18 June 2009

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

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.

more . . . http://www.truthout.org/061809A

[Zodiak]

1. Good for them

Liberals have long ago noticed that the only time the long knives seem to come out in the Democratic party, it comes for them.

I am glad to see that the new progessive members of the House will not bow down to political pressure and stick to principles. Principals are what Americans respect, not default malleability for political expedience. They want their representative to stand for something.

If Obama wants liberal and progressive support in Congress, he should offer a quid pro quo like he does everyone else. Threatening without offering a carrot is not healthy internal party politics. It pisses people off.

[LWolf]

2. I agree:

<snip>

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.