sho 'nuf, butt dey man at deh komputer, he make it so dems kin rul dey wold sum dey. Yassuh, 'jes don' git awl uppity like, 'n stawt dat agitatum--gonna loose evuhting we dun work soo hardly fuh. dis here liberull blawg gwan ti chang dey hole dynamicside. free at last! free at last! don't axe for pease, we 'r free att last! +++

I'm not the only peon-blogger drinking in Kali tonight. Cheers!

he sho is uppity

One of my major points was that the strength of the anti-Iraq War movement was much more prevalent in the House than in the Senate and thus the "line in the sand" needed to be drawn there so that the inevitable "compromises" that the Senate would require could start from a more anti-Debacle position. And of course, Bush would veto any concrete anti-Debacle legislation. Thus ultimately, a staredown with the President would be required. That is why I endorsed this approach:

I ask for three things: First, announce NOW that the Democratic Congress will NOT fund the Iraq Debacle after a date certain. You pick the date. Whatever works politically. If October 2007 is the date Dems can agree to, then let it be then. If March 2008, then let that be the date; Second, spend the year reminding the President and the American People every day that Democrats will not fund the war past the date certain; Third, do NOT fund the Iraq Debacle PAST the date certain.

The House bill does none of these things.

And the point of my approach has always been that the votes are not there for a positive action on ending the war. The action must be negative. Instead of convoluting this simple approach with benchmarks and other provisions susceptible to challenges of micromanagement and uncontitutionality, stick to the approach EVERYONE agrees is legal and principled - do not fund the war.

snip

And votes are not needed for this approach. Fortitude from the House leadership is what is needed. Present a clean funding bill to the date certain. No distractions with benchmarks and Presidential certification. JUST a DATE CERTAIN. And then the LEADERSHIP, preferably in the House, states bluntly that no more monies will be provided. The Dem LEADERSHIP will not put forward legislation funding past the date certain. There is nothing objectionable in the bill itself, so no basis for attacking it EXCEPT because it sets and end date to the US military combat presence in the Iraqi civil war.

And then a couragous leadership does what is necessary to hold the line. IF the Blue Dogs bolt, then THEY own the war, but mainline Dems do not. I think the Blue Dogs would not bolt when the time comes - say March 31, 2008. A year from now there will be MORE support for leaving Iraq, not less. A better chance to end the war and play smart politics.

snip
A hopeless approach is not a legislative strategy either David. PLEASE STOP WITH THE PURITY NONSENSE! Most of us oppose your strategy because we think it is a bad one, harmful to the cause and harmful politically. Stop flattering yourself as the pragmatic ones. We think you are utterly UNpragmatic. Honest to goodness, we think your strategy really really not smart. We could be wrong, but please, argue the merits. Maybe we are the dumb ones. But the little purity namecalling is really really annoying. Just stop it.

don go an' tell Massah Ovahlordy now, chillins. he's a lak to git mighty powahful angry.

Seriously. Now you all know why I don't go there.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

I don't hate Lawd Kos, but it pisses me off when he uses his status as almighty ruler of left blogistan to silence and intimidate other lefties who might disagree with him.

Let's see what happens today in the Senate. This in the WaPo makes it look like GOP senators will not block the supplemental and let Bush veto it.

It would be a "woo-hoo" moment for the Democratic Party but what does it do for the Iraqis and the troops on the ground? Nada.

Because sausages are pure! Or babies are. I forget. Maybe it's sausages made out of babies. Whatever.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Terrific, albeit rather grim, column in the Star-Tribune today. US Rep Keith Ellison, who we last saw catching unmitigated shit for being sworn in to office with his hand on a Koran merely on account of he is Muslim, today gets to stand under Abuse Shower from the left for voting for the funding bill with the cutoff date.

Same bitch: it wasn't drastic enough, so he should have voted against any cutoff at all. The result of course, as he pointed out, would be that the failure of the bill would have been described everywhere as a "Real Democrats Support The War", Pelosi is a Failure as Speaker, Dems have no Discipline, etc. etc. etc. and a Big Bush Win.

Baby sausage steps indeed. It's still better than stepping backward into the deeper quicksand, or trying to reassemble the sausage into pig.

When he uses his army of minions to carry the orange banner against the forces of Bu$hCo he has my support.

When he uses his position to better his own chances to play insider baseball, he loses my respect.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Because we all know that Perfect Babies are the enemy of Good Babies... or of Good Sausage? ###

... of "more pure" would be "imperfect," however.

See, if there's purity, there can be a purity test. And that's an important part of the semantic. "If a Republican, have you ever been aroused by a page on the floor of the House? If a Democrat, by the phrase 'public policy'"" And so forth... Nice project for a rainy day, coming up with a purity test for the Beltway.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Can I be pragmatic today (Xan), and also want to shove the pragmatists left (Shystee)?

You're never alone with a schizophrenic...

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Or words to that effect.

Great stuff on "Pshaw" and responses, I would never presume to attempt to imitate.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.