Quantcast

The Nation

The GOP's Lonely Antiwar Wing

We've heard a lot about how Republicans are/were uneasy about the political and policy prospects of George W. Bush's war in Iraq. But when it came time to vote on whether to set a timeline to begin to bring that war to a close, only two Republicans said no to the President.

They are Representatives Walter Jones of North Carolina and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, and they can best be described as the lonely leaders of the GOP's dormant antiwar wing. The situation is the same in the Senate. After Bush announced his escalation plan, Republican after Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee raised a stink. Yet on the recent Senate vote to redeploy troops by March 31, 2008, Senator Gordon Smith was the only Republican to vote with the Democratic majority.

Even Senator Chuck Hagel, one of the most vociferous critics of the war, refused to be associated with the antiwar camp. "I am not an antiwar candidate," Hagel said. "I have never been antiwar." Strange words from a man who described the troop increase as an "Alice in Wonderland" strategy that was "folly."

What gives? Currently Republicans are trying to have it both ways--criticizing the war while sticking with the Bush Administration on actual pieces of legislation, albeit sometimes reluctantly. Because the next election is still 20 months away (even though it doesn't seem like it), they haven't had to choose between the President and the war. But eventually, if Iraq stays violent and Bush unpopular, they will. Only then will the war begin to come to a close.

Lamar Smith’s Would-Be Banana Republic

Just when 600,000 permanent residents of the District of Columbia were about to receive voting representation (you remember it, Lamar – that thing we fought the King of England for) approval from the House, the Texas Republican tied up the bill by attempting to use it to gut the city's gun restrictions.

This ploy reflects the most craven, cynical, inside the Beltway maneuvering since – well – just months ago when we kicked these anti-democratic, power-hungry cronies out of the Majority.

"Galling," said FairVote Executive Director, Rob Richie. "Particularly the combination of overruling home rule decisions about gun control in DC while also fighting to deny the District representation in Congress. What hypocrisy!"

If Richie sounds mad, he is. And he should be. As our government lectures the world on the fruits of democracy, people like Smith continue to treat our fellow citizens--living in the backyard of Congress-- as subjects on some outlying Banana Republic. For Smith and his ilk, there's a gut fear of promoting greater democracy here at home.

But proponents of the bill will not be deterred – and the residents of the District are sure to be even more fired up.

"We are already working closely with the Democratic leadership, our Republican allies, and coalition partners to regroup," DC Vote Executive Director Ilir Zherka said today. "This is a momentary pause in the push to bring civil rights to the residents of the District of Columbia. [We] will use this time to defeat these stall tactics and bring congressional voting representation to Washington, DC."

House Backs Pelosi's Iraq Spending Bill

After weeks of bitter wrangling, the House voted Friday for Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan to attach benchmarks and an exit timeline to funding for the continuation of the Iraq War.

The vote was 218-212, with anti-war progressives who had initially objected to the Pelosi plan because it continued to fund the war, helping to provide the margin of victory.

216 Democrats voted for the spending bill, as did two Republicans -- Maryland's Wayne Gilchrest and North Carolina's Walter Jones, both veteran war critics. Among the Democrats who voted for the measure were many who, in the past, had opposed supplemental funding requests from the Bush White House, including Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin, Michigan's John Conyers, Washington's Jim McDermott and Massachusetts' Jim McGovern.

198 Republicans voted against the bill, as did 14 Democrats. Some of the Democrats who opposed the bill were southern conservatives who essentially support President Bush's handling of the war. But eight of the "no" votes came from anti-war Democrats, who object to any additional funding of the war joined them -- including Georgia's John Lewis, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, California's Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey.

Several anti-war Republicans, including Texan Ron Paul and Tennessee's John Duncan, also voted "no."

One anti-war Democrat, California's Pete Stark, vote "present."

On Thursday night, Lee, Waters, Watson and Woolsey had released a statement that said, "After two grueling weeks of meetings, progressive members of Congress brought forth an agreement that provided the momentum to pass a supplemental spending bill that, for the first time, establishes a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

As such, Waters, a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said to anti-war members: "We have released people who were beginning…to be pulled in a different direction. We don't want them to be put in a position where they look like they are undermining Nancy's speakership."

Lee said, "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war."

By suggesting that anti-war members could give their votes to Pelosi, the four California progressives provided significant aid to the speaker's effort to pass the spending bill. Pelosi needed roughly 218 votes to prevail, and she could not have gotten near that number without the support of anti-war Democrats who had voted against previous supplemental spending measures.

When it became clear that their specific support would not be needed to get to the 218 figure, however, Lee Waters, Watson and Woolsey cast votes of conscience against further funding of the war. How would they have voted if Pelosi's bill had faced defeat without them? That's a question that will continue to be asked. Lee almost certainly would have cast a "no" vote, as she did when the bill was considered by the Appropriations Committee. The others might well have voted "no," as well. But they did not have to face the stark question of whether they wanted to cast the votes that killed a measure that, while too soft for their tastes, still expressed a measure of anti-war sentiment.

The dispute over the bill opened serious divisions within the anti-war movement. some of which will be slow to heal. While Lee, Waters, Watson and Woolsey -- who had been some of the most vocal critics of the bill -- ultimately cast "no" votes, other anti-war members such as Vermont's Peter Welch voted "yes." As the representative of a state that has espressed strong opposition to continued funding of the war, Welch and others like him are likely to feel heat at home.

But, just as many in the anti-war community have complaints about the Pelosi package, the Bush White House is also unhappy.

Even though Pelosi's bill provides the White House with the money the president requested, Bush has promised a veto of any measure with benchmarks or a timeline.

The Senate has begun consideration of a spending bill with a tougher timeline. If it passes such a measure, the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled before going to the president's desk.

Translation: This fight is a long way from over.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Lee, Woolsey, Waters, Watson Clear Way For Pelosi Bill

Progressive opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan to give President Bush the money he seeks to maintain the war in Iraq for at least another year -- but to attach benchmarks and a timeline designed to make it easier to ultimately end the war -- went into collapse Thursday.

Four key members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who had been among the more outspoken critics of the Pelosi plan, agreed to back off after meetings with the speaker.

"After two grueling weeks of meetings, progressive members of Congress brought forth an agreement that provided the momentum to pass a supplemental spending bill that, for the first time, establishes a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," California Democrats Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson said in a statement released late in the day.

Lee and Woolsey co-chair the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Waters is a founder of the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus.

All four had objected that the Pelosi bill asked too little of the president and allowed the war to go on for too long.

But, as it became clear that their opposition might prevent passage of the spending bill and hand a preceived victory to the president, the progressives bagan to waver.

Waters said that she and her allies would no longer encourage anti-war Democrats to oppose the Pelosi plan. "We have released people who were beginning…to be pulled in a different direction," she was reported as explaining. "We don't want them to be put in a position where they look like they are undermining Nancy's speakership."

For Lee, the decision to effectively encourage support for Pelosi's plan was particularly tough. She cast the sole vote against authorizing Bush to mount a military response to the 9-11 attacks in 2001, and she has consistently opposed every step to initiate and expand the Iraq War. "I have struggled with this decision, but I finally decided that, while I cannot betray my conscience, I cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end date on this unnecessary war,'' Lee was quoted as saying by the online magzaine The Politico.

The shift by Lee, who last week voted against advancing the Pelosi plan as part of the deliberations by the Appropriations Committee, is especially significant. It is likely to free up a number of other anti-war Democrats in the House to vote with Pelosi.

Where does this leave the debate over the bill?

Most Republicans will oppose it, as will a handful of Democrats -- some of them Blue Dog conservatives who support the war, some of them anti-war progressives such as Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

But with most of the key players on the anti-war flank of the Democratic caucus in the House signing on, Pelosi's proposal now appears far more likely to be passed than it did just a few days ago. It needs 218 votes, and there is a distinct possibility that the votes of Lee, Waters, Watson and Woolsey could secure its success.

Bush continues to promise a veto of any such measure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Take this McJob, and...

"An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector." That's The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "McJob," a term which has been in common use ever since Douglas Coupland popularized it in his 1991 novel Generation X (published the year I graduated from college, which was a dismal year to look for any other kind of job). The Financial Times reports that McDonald's has launched a campaign to remove the word from the esteemed O.E.D. Now, the O.E.D. is obviously not out to slam McDonald's; its experts closely follow trends in the English language. A word gets into the O.E.D. because it is in widespread use. McDonald's could ask itself why it has become synonymous with dead-end, crappy employment, and seek to make life better for its workers. Instead, the company has launched a petition drive to persuade the O.E.D. to drop the term. A petition! As if it was a neighborhood association, rather than a multi-national behemoth. As corporate conduct goes, this is certainly more courteous than suing a ragtag bunch of vegetarian environmentalists, as the company did in the infamous McLibel trial, but the petition strategy is unlikely to succeed. The O.E.D. -- along with other dictionaries that define the word similarly, like Merriam-Webster -- isn't likely to remove the term until it ceases to be in use. That is, until reality changes.

The Elizabeth Edwards Campaign

John Edwards is still in the running.

But his campaign will be different from here on out.

On Thursday morning, as word spread that his wife, Elizabeth, has suffered an extremely serious recurrence of the cancer that struck her in 2004, there was broad speculation that Edwards would suspend his run for the 2OO8 Democratic nomination.

Instead, as reporters crowded around to record what many though would be the exit of the former North Carolina senator from the presidential contest, Edwards declared, "The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly."

But, of course, the campaign will now be shadowed by a discussion about the health of Elizabeth Edwards. It is a discussion that both husband and wife are willing to engage in. And they will put it in perspective.

"Is this a hardship for us? It's yet another hurdle," says Elizabeth Edwards, who was diagnosed this week with what appears to be daunting case of bone cancer. "But I've seen people who are in really desperate shape."

Elizabeth Edwards went on to say that she felt "unbelievably important" for her husband's campaign to continue.

She is not being a "dutiful" political wife when she says this.

Elizabeth Edwards, who I have interviewed frequently and watched on many of the twists and turns of the presidential campaign trail, is a wholly engaged and very serious political player.

She believes in her husband's run for the 2OO8 nomination -- not merely because the candidate is her husband but because the campaign has embraced so many of her progressive values -- and she has influenced it profoundly.

Always more deeply and specifically critical of the Iraq War, Elizabeth Edwards has played a central role in moving her husband toward a more aggressively anti-war position. In the summer of 2OO5, before John Edwards apologized for his 2OO2 vote to authorize President Bush to take the country to war in Iraq, Elizabeth Edwards expressed support for Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier who was then emerging as a leading war critic.

At a time when few prominent political figures were willing to step up and tell President Bush to meet with Sheehan and hear her anti-war views, Elizabeth Edwards wrote, "Whether you agree or disagree with every part, or any part, of what Cindy wants to say, you know it is better that the president hear different opinions, particularly from those with such a deep and personal interest in the decisions of our government. Today, another voice would be helpful. Cindy Sheehan can be that voice. She has earned the right to be that voice."

There is no question that John Edwards has become a stronger candidate as he has listened more to the advice of his wife than the consultants who, in 2OO4, prodded him to be too cautious and controlled. As someone who has seen the two of them together, I am convinced that John Edwards now relies on Elizabeth Edwards as his essential adviser.

That's good for him politically, and, frankly, it's good for progressives who want the Democratic presidential contest to feature a top-tier contender who speaks seriously about the need to advance economic and social justice at home and abroad.

If Elizabeth Edwards wanted John Edwards out of the presidential race, he would be out.

But she wants him to continue the campaign -- not merely as a bid for office but as a crusade to advance a different and more progressive vision of America. She is a true believer. And she will remain the greatest asset for John Edwards' candidacy. For better or worse, the drama surrounding her serious struggle with cancer will make the focus of the Edwards campaign on the need for fundamental health care reforms all the more meaningful.

Some will see that as inappropriate, perhaps even exploitive. But that's absurd. Elizabeth Edwards has a talent for downplaying her own ailments in a way that allows her to connect with people on a human level. And that connection will benefit the Edwards for President bid -- a run that, from here on out, will be more serious, more real and, very possibly, more viably because this couple has made the serious decision to continue with a campaign that is beginning to look more and more like a mission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Energy and Substance

While too much of the media has focused on first-quarter fundraising battles and the sniping between the Obama and Clinton camps, presidential candidate John Edwards took the opportunity to lay out a bold energy plan that addresses some of the great challenges of our time.

As he said in a speech in Iowa, "Our generation must be the one that says, ‘we must halt global warming.' Our generation must be the one that says ‘yes' to renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. And our generation must be the one that builds the new energy economy. It won't be easy, but it is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."

Some key aspects of the Edwards Energy Plan include a cap on greenhouse pollution in 2010 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050 – consistent with the dictates of the latest climate science. He would use an economy-wide, cap-and-trade system and sell a portion of the pollution permits to raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund. The Fund would be used to pursue clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs in the process – along the lines of what the Apollo Alliance has outlined. One billion dollars a year from would go towards helping US automakers meet higher fuel economy requirements and utilize the latest technologies, including biofuels, hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen fuel cells, and ultra-light materials. Finally, Edwards' plan calls for opening the electricity grid so that small-scale renewable electric generation – by farms, factories, schools, and communities – can compete with large, central power plants. (This is something Academy Award winner and pre-Scalia President-elect, Al Gore, touted in hearings on Capitol Hill today. Great to see Gore pushing the Presidential debate without even being a part of the race).

Edwards might be winning the early frontrunner race when it comes to substance over flash – he has been clear and strong on health care, labor rights and now energy. (And so far, among the frontrunners, Edwards and Obama have been clearest about a plan for ending the War in Iraq – though neither of them matches the clarity and courage of Dennis Kucinich, a presidential candidate who should receive more attention from the blogosphere since it isn't coming from the conventional media.)

With the science of global warming now settled for just about everyone who isn't named Sen. James Inhofe, and the costs of a status quo energy policy perfectly clear, speaking out boldly on how to address these challenges should be a prerequisite for any presidential candidate. Good to see John Edwards doing the right thing here.

The Decider is Delusional

Is George Bush delusional?

No, that question is not an attack on his intelligence.

Nor is it a criticism of some bizarre new position he has taken with regard to the affairs of state--although, as it happens, he has.

Rather, it is a serious question about whether the president understands what is going on around him.

After he announced Tuesday that the White House would not make a serious effort to cooperate with the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation into the firing of US Attorneys who would not politicize their prosecutions, the President was asked about several of the attorneys who had been removed.

"I'm sorry, just frankly, it bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the US attorneys involved," answered Bush. "I really am. These are --I put them in there in the first place. They're decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now, they're being held up in the scrutiny of all this. And it's just--what I said in comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, DC, for you. You know, there a lot of politics in this town."

Here's the troubling thing about Bush's response.

It appears that he might be unaware that his firing of the US Attorneys – who, as he notes "serve at the pleasure of the president" – took the situation "to where it's got."

Does Bush think that these US Attorneys are under attack by the Senate?

Does he not understand that the Senate is trying to figure out why Bush and his aides went after the fired prosecutors?

Does he not understand that the US Attorneys in question will be testifying about wrongdoing by presidential appointees?

That's where the question about the President's awareness of what is going on around him arises.

Indeed, the only comment more delusional than his expression of sympathy for the US Attorneys was Bush's suggestion that he and his aides have the authority to refuse to cooperate with Congressional requests for information and testimony regarding wrongdoing within the White House.

After bluntly stating that he would fight efforts to have White House staffers testify before the Judiciary Committee, he said of the Senate: "I hope they don't choose confrontation."

The Senate is not choosing confrontation. Bush is.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, is operating entirely within its Constitutional mandate. Leahy has consulted closely with Republicans on the committee and respected their requests to give the White House time to do the right thing. Now that his White House has refused to respect the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution, Bush says of members of the Senate: "It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials, when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available."

Let's be clear: The suggestion that the President is delusional is the most respectful assessment of what was said during Tuesday's press conference.

After all, if he is not delusional, than the President of the United States is deliberately attempting to deceive the Congress and the American people about high crimes and misdemeanors that may have been committed by his aides and by himself. In his comments Tuesday, the President made reference to what the framers of the Constitution "understood" when they were "developing the separate branches of government." In fact, what the framers understood was that, in order to assure that the executive branch would cooperate with the legislative branch in disputes over federal affairs, Congress would need the authority to sanction presidents who attempt to avert appropriate checks and balances. This was a matter that the framers of the Constitution took so seriously that they outlined specific remedies for so sanctioning lawless presidents and their aides.

For the President's reference, they are found in Article I in the sections dealing with the power of the Congress to impeach and remove presidents and their aides. It is sobering reading for royalists, so sobering in fact that it could cure a nasty case of presidential delusions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Students Against War

At the outset of the Iraq war four years ago numerous polls found that students, like the majority of the population, overwhelmingly supported the invasion. Now those same polls show that students, more than any other age group, oppose the war.

I've heard much lamenting over the lack of student antiwar activism and organizing around Iraq. The absence of a draft is generally held to be the most important difference in explaining the larger student mobilizations against war in Southeast Asia but charges of apathy also abound.

This has always seemed unfair to me--students have exhibited just as much, if not in most cases more, opposition to the war than any other age group. As Sam Graham-Felsen recounted in a recent Nation article, a broad array of student groups have made ending the war a top priority. Among the main players are a reborn Students for a Democratic Society, the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, the Campus Antiwar Network and the Hip Hop Caucus, a new organization founded by Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. (Check the SDS site for a survey of antiwar actions mounted by students to mark yesterday's fourth anniversary of the war and read Nation intern Wes Enzinna's description of antiwar activists' use of YouTube for more examples of student opposition to the war.)

Offering some of the most substantial support for this collegiate peace activism, Campus Progress, the student program of the Center for American Progress, has launched the Iraq Campaign and Iraq Film Project. (Full disclosure: CP is also an active collaborator with The Nation. We re-publish a small portion of CP content on our StudentNation site and we jointly produce an annual student journalism conference.)

There's been an unusually large number of good documentaries recently produced on the war which can help bring the realities on the ground into sharp focus. Campus Progress is offering to supply organizers with the docs and assist in arranging associated panel discussions with war veterans, elected officials, policy experts, activists, and film directors. Check out the list of films currently being screened, see a list of upcoming screenings, and click here to organize a screening on your campus. More than 40 US campuses have already signed up to host film events.

Campus Progress is also offering ideas for action, downloadable posters and signs, access to policy experts, and, best of all, actual grants of $200 to $1,000 to student activists working on innovative education and advocacy campaigns to end the Iraq war.

If you're not a student and want to get more involved in peace actions, check out the United for Peace website for a range of activist suggestions and tools for change.


Does diversity matter? The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights is asking students from 12 to 17 years of age that question in a "Kids Speakout" writing contest. All entries must be recieved by March 30. The winner receives $500.