Reframing HuffPost's Terrible Advice to the Democrats
Doug Schoen writes in the usually sensible Huffington Post that the Democrats should roll over, as usual, and give GWB the blank check he’s looking for in Iraq: no limits on dollars or on deployment.
I think this an extremely wrong-headed and ill-advised idea–some of the worst advice I’ve heard anywhere in quite a while, in fact.
Here’s most of the public comment I made:
The Democrats need to hold fast, and to frame the dialogue thusly:
“We gave GWB a very reasonable bill that funds the war for the time being but begins a phased withdrawal. we are exercising our Constitutional authority as controller of the purse strings and a check on unbridled Presidential power. But Bush wanted a blank check, and that would be negligent–perhaps even criminally irresponsible. We do not want this crime on our hands, and we will not be a party to it. We absolutely refuse to abdicate our responsibilities by bringing forward any kind of blank check bill. Bush is the one who will not negotiate, and who is trying to usurp the power we were granted back in 1787”.
I’m using “framing” here as George Lakoff would use it: to wrap the debate around a construct that brings the public’s reference into focus–just as a black frame on a white wall allows the eye to differentiate elements in the white-background picture hanging within that frame.
The frame I’m proposing above is one that paints the Democrats as patriotic, as responsible–and GWB as overreaching his authority. This frame was not much in evidence in mainstream media during the run-up to the war, and if it had been, perhaps it would have slowed or stopped that unfortunate tide.
For far too long, the Democrats have allowed the right wing to create the frames. We have to take them back, and this is a great place to start.
A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com
As far as I know, Clinton pushed unsuccessfully for a presidential line-item veto (as had Reagan) and Bush cannot do this–but I’m not an expert.
As far as I know, Clinton pushed unsuccessfully for a presidential line-item veto (as had Reagan) and Bush cannot do this–but I’m not an expert.
As far as I know, Clinton pushed unsuccessfully for a presidential line-item veto (as had Reagan) and Bush cannot do this–but I’m not an expert.
As far as I know, Clinton pushed unsuccessfully for a presidential line-item veto (as had Reagan) and Bush cannot do this–but I’m not an expert.
No major disagreement with you, Shel!
More or less wanted to add a concrete example of this lack of spine occurring in an unexpected place – a NH pol elected largely on her purported antiwar position.
It would be great if you are right about the “leverage” argument, but it could work the other way. It gets Dems and others accustomed to the idea that the war does deserve funding – the old “back up our troops” shell game for many, the “compromise to get a promise to withdraw” for some, the “embarrass the vetoing president” for s few others.
A question on the latter that I have wondered about, but was afraid to ask – do you know if it is possible for Bush to use a line-item veto here? If so, then the oxymoron bill really becomes an enabling mechanism provided by the Democrats.
Dave Ecklein
No major disagreement with you, Shel!
More or less wanted to add a concrete example of this lack of spine occurring in an unexpected place – a NH pol elected largely on her purported antiwar position.
It would be great if you are right about the “leverage” argument, but it could work the other way. It gets Dems and others accustomed to the idea that the war does deserve funding – the old “back up our troops” shell game for many, the “compromise to get a promise to withdraw” for some, the “embarrass the vetoing president” for s few others.
A question on the latter that I have wondered about, but was afraid to ask – do you know if it is possible for Bush to use a line-item veto here? If so, then the oxymoron bill really becomes an enabling mechanism provided by the Democrats.
Dave Ecklein
No major disagreement with you, Shel!
More or less wanted to add a concrete example of this lack of spine occurring in an unexpected place – a NH pol elected largely on her purported antiwar position.
It would be great if you are right about the “leverage” argument, but it could work the other way. It gets Dems and others accustomed to the idea that the war does deserve funding – the old “back up our troops” shell game for many, the “compromise to get a promise to withdraw” for some, the “embarrass the vetoing president” for s few others.
A question on the latter that I have wondered about, but was afraid to ask – do you know if it is possible for Bush to use a line-item veto here? If so, then the oxymoron bill really becomes an enabling mechanism provided by the Democrats.
Dave Ecklein
No major disagreement with you, Shel!
More or less wanted to add a concrete example of this lack of spine occurring in an unexpected place – a NH pol elected largely on her purported antiwar position.
It would be great if you are right about the “leverage” argument, but it could work the other way. It gets Dems and others accustomed to the idea that the war does deserve funding – the old “back up our troops” shell game for many, the “compromise to get a promise to withdraw” for some, the “embarrass the vetoing president” for s few others.
A question on the latter that I have wondered about, but was afraid to ask – do you know if it is possible for Bush to use a line-item veto here? If so, then the oxymoron bill really becomes an enabling mechanism provided by the Democrats.
Dave Ecklein
Absolutely! My suggestion is if Bush vetoes the current bill (assuming it has withdrawal dates as the House and Senate versions do), Congress should send him another bill, with the same limits and something to make the replacement bill a little WORSE from Bush’s perspective, and if he vetoes that one, send him one a little worse yet, until he cries uncle and signs.
However that would take some guts from Congress, and I doubt that they have any.
Roger Conant
Absolutely! My suggestion is if Bush vetoes the current bill (assuming it has withdrawal dates as the House and Senate versions do), Congress should send him another bill, with the same limits and something to make the replacement bill a little WORSE from Bush’s perspective, and if he vetoes that one, send him one a little worse yet, until he cries uncle and signs.
However that would take some guts from Congress, and I doubt that they have any.
Roger Conant
Absolutely! My suggestion is if Bush vetoes the current bill (assuming it has withdrawal dates as the House and Senate versions do), Congress should send him another bill, with the same limits and something to make the replacement bill a little WORSE from Bush’s perspective, and if he vetoes that one, send him one a little worse yet, until he cries uncle and signs.
However that would take some guts from Congress, and I doubt that they have any.
Roger Conant
Absolutely! My suggestion is if Bush vetoes the current bill (assuming it has withdrawal dates as the House and Senate versions do), Congress should send him another bill, with the same limits and something to make the replacement bill a little WORSE from Bush’s perspective, and if he vetoes that one, send him one a little worse yet, until he cries uncle and signs.
However that would take some guts from Congress, and I doubt that they have any.
Roger Conant
Hi, David, thanks for your comment.
yes, I agree that even the “date certain” bill was too little, too late–and I think Kucinich’s peace plan is great. I voted for him in the 04 primary and plan to do so again next year.
My post was based on the assumption that the Democratic party is too spineless to do what really needs to be done–and a response to the absurd statements that the Dems should go ahead and blindly continue to fund the war without restriction. I do believe that no matter how wimpy they are, any restrictions will provide leverage for powerful citizen organizing to speed up the withdrawal and defunding. I cannot understand how any progressive could write an article on HuffPost saying Bush should get carte blanche, and that’s why I wrote my comment.
Hi, David, thanks for your comment.
yes, I agree that even the “date certain” bill was too little, too late–and I think Kucinich’s peace plan is great. I voted for him in the 04 primary and plan to do so again next year.
My post was based on the assumption that the Democratic party is too spineless to do what really needs to be done–and a response to the absurd statements that the Dems should go ahead and blindly continue to fund the war without restriction. I do believe that no matter how wimpy they are, any restrictions will provide leverage for powerful citizen organizing to speed up the withdrawal and defunding. I cannot understand how any progressive could write an article on HuffPost saying Bush should get carte blanche, and that’s why I wrote my comment.
Hi, David, thanks for your comment.
yes, I agree that even the “date certain” bill was too little, too late–and I think Kucinich’s peace plan is great. I voted for him in the 04 primary and plan to do so again next year.
My post was based on the assumption that the Democratic party is too spineless to do what really needs to be done–and a response to the absurd statements that the Dems should go ahead and blindly continue to fund the war without restriction. I do believe that no matter how wimpy they are, any restrictions will provide leverage for powerful citizen organizing to speed up the withdrawal and defunding. I cannot understand how any progressive could write an article on HuffPost saying Bush should get carte blanche, and that’s why I wrote my comment.
Hi, David, thanks for your comment.
yes, I agree that even the “date certain” bill was too little, too late–and I think Kucinich’s peace plan is great. I voted for him in the 04 primary and plan to do so again next year.
My post was based on the assumption that the Democratic party is too spineless to do what really needs to be done–and a response to the absurd statements that the Dems should go ahead and blindly continue to fund the war without restriction. I do believe that no matter how wimpy they are, any restrictions will provide leverage for powerful citizen organizing to speed up the withdrawal and defunding. I cannot understand how any progressive could write an article on HuffPost saying Bush should get carte blanche, and that’s why I wrote my comment.
Hi Shel,
Registered just to comment on your post here.
I think the Dems already went too far. Up here in New Hampshire, one of our US Representatives, Carol Shea-Porter, was elected in an upset on an antiwar platform, and then went ahead to sign on to this Pushmepullyou bill as her first act having anything to do with Iraq. Remember, it proposes to fund the war to the extent of OVER 100 BILLION DOLLARS for a promise to end it after a year! I am actually surprised Bush does not snap it up in a spirit of “bipartisanship” – anything can (and probably will) happen in a year. Of course, one possibility is that the situation will become so hopeless for Bush & Co that they will be forced into a VietNam-style exit no matter how much of our money the Democrats are willing to throw away.
This funding bill was a disgusting sucker punch mounted by pro-war Democrats who are in firm control of the party, and Carol, like too many others, fell for it. The difference between an “exit date” far in the future (after even thousands more have died for a lie) and “no exit date” is nothing! Whenever the magic “exit date” arrives, Bush Incorporated will find enough reason to abort or delay the exit. And the spineless Democrats (seemingly in the majority) will allow it, if past is prologue. If Bush is the “Decider”, then faux-antiwar Democrats like Carol are “Undeciders”. They can’t decide whether to run with the hares or hunt with the hounds.
The funding should be stopped, and our young people should be extricated from the physical and moral cesspool that past “funding”, past “deciders” and “undeciders”, have pushed them into. Now! Not at some mythical “exit date” traded for support of the war!
There exist other types of Democrats. Kucinich for one has been consistent in voting against this criminal war and against all funding for it. See his website http://www.kucinich.us for his step-by-step plan to get out of Iraq ASAP – and the bills he has introduced to that end – bills which Carol should be voting for instead.
But Carol Shea-Porter, at the first opportunity to show her true colors, by even a small thing like voting against funding a war she claims she is against, has disappointed supporters who worked for, contributed to, and voted her into office on an antiwar platform.
Dave Ecklein
Hi Shel,
Registered just to comment on your post here.
I think the Dems already went too far. Up here in New Hampshire, one of our US Representatives, Carol Shea-Porter, was elected in an upset on an antiwar platform, and then went ahead to sign on to this Pushmepullyou bill as her first act having anything to do with Iraq. Remember, it proposes to fund the war to the extent of OVER 100 BILLION DOLLARS for a promise to end it after a year! I am actually surprised Bush does not snap it up in a spirit of “bipartisanship” – anything can (and probably will) happen in a year. Of course, one possibility is that the situation will become so hopeless for Bush & Co that they will be forced into a VietNam-style exit no matter how much of our money the Democrats are willing to throw away.
This funding bill was a disgusting sucker punch mounted by pro-war Democrats who are in firm control of the party, and Carol, like too many others, fell for it. The difference between an “exit date” far in the future (after even thousands more have died for a lie) and “no exit date” is nothing! Whenever the magic “exit date” arrives, Bush Incorporated will find enough reason to abort or delay the exit. And the spineless Democrats (seemingly in the majority) will allow it, if past is prologue. If Bush is the “Decider”, then faux-antiwar Democrats like Carol are “Undeciders”. They can’t decide whether to run with the hares or hunt with the hounds.
The funding should be stopped, and our young people should be extricated from the physical and moral cesspool that past “funding”, past “deciders” and “undeciders”, have pushed them into. Now! Not at some mythical “exit date” traded for support of the war!
There exist other types of Democrats. Kucinich for one has been consistent in voting against this criminal war and against all funding for it. See his website http://www.kucinich.us for his step-by-step plan to get out of Iraq ASAP – and the bills he has introduced to that end – bills which Carol should be voting for instead.
But Carol Shea-Porter, at the first opportunity to show her true colors, by even a small thing like voting against funding a war she claims she is against, has disappointed supporters who worked for, contributed to, and voted her into office on an antiwar platform.
Dave Ecklein
Hi Shel,
Registered just to comment on your post here.
I think the Dems already went too far. Up here in New Hampshire, one of our US Representatives, Carol Shea-Porter, was elected in an upset on an antiwar platform, and then went ahead to sign on to this Pushmepullyou bill as her first act having anything to do with Iraq. Remember, it proposes to fund the war to the extent of OVER 100 BILLION DOLLARS for a promise to end it after a year! I am actually surprised Bush does not snap it up in a spirit of “bipartisanship” – anything can (and probably will) happen in a year. Of course, one possibility is that the situation will become so hopeless for Bush & Co that they will be forced into a VietNam-style exit no matter how much of our money the Democrats are willing to throw away.
This funding bill was a disgusting sucker punch mounted by pro-war Democrats who are in firm control of the party, and Carol, like too many others, fell for it. The difference between an “exit date” far in the future (after even thousands more have died for a lie) and “no exit date” is nothing! Whenever the magic “exit date” arrives, Bush Incorporated will find enough reason to abort or delay the exit. And the spineless Democrats (seemingly in the majority) will allow it, if past is prologue. If Bush is the “Decider”, then faux-antiwar Democrats like Carol are “Undeciders”. They can’t decide whether to run with the hares or hunt with the hounds.
The funding should be stopped, and our young people should be extricated from the physical and moral cesspool that past “funding”, past “deciders” and “undeciders”, have pushed them into. Now! Not at some mythical “exit date” traded for support of the war!
There exist other types of Democrats. Kucinich for one has been consistent in voting against this criminal war and against all funding for it. See his website http://www.kucinich.us for his step-by-step plan to get out of Iraq ASAP – and the bills he has introduced to that end – bills which Carol should be voting for instead.
But Carol Shea-Porter, at the first opportunity to show her true colors, by even a small thing like voting against funding a war she claims she is against, has disappointed supporters who worked for, contributed to, and voted her into office on an antiwar platform.
Dave Ecklein
Hi Shel,
Registered just to comment on your post here.
I think the Dems already went too far. Up here in New Hampshire, one of our US Representatives, Carol Shea-Porter, was elected in an upset on an antiwar platform, and then went ahead to sign on to this Pushmepullyou bill as her first act having anything to do with Iraq. Remember, it proposes to fund the war to the extent of OVER 100 BILLION DOLLARS for a promise to end it after a year! I am actually surprised Bush does not snap it up in a spirit of “bipartisanship” – anything can (and probably will) happen in a year. Of course, one possibility is that the situation will become so hopeless for Bush & Co that they will be forced into a VietNam-style exit no matter how much of our money the Democrats are willing to throw away.
This funding bill was a disgusting sucker punch mounted by pro-war Democrats who are in firm control of the party, and Carol, like too many others, fell for it. The difference between an “exit date” far in the future (after even thousands more have died for a lie) and “no exit date” is nothing! Whenever the magic “exit date” arrives, Bush Incorporated will find enough reason to abort or delay the exit. And the spineless Democrats (seemingly in the majority) will allow it, if past is prologue. If Bush is the “Decider”, then faux-antiwar Democrats like Carol are “Undeciders”. They can’t decide whether to run with the hares or hunt with the hounds.
The funding should be stopped, and our young people should be extricated from the physical and moral cesspool that past “funding”, past “deciders” and “undeciders”, have pushed them into. Now! Not at some mythical “exit date” traded for support of the war!
There exist other types of Democrats. Kucinich for one has been consistent in voting against this criminal war and against all funding for it. See his website http://www.kucinich.us for his step-by-step plan to get out of Iraq ASAP – and the bills he has introduced to that end – bills which Carol should be voting for instead.
But Carol Shea-Porter, at the first opportunity to show her true colors, by even a small thing like voting against funding a war she claims she is against, has disappointed supporters who worked for, contributed to, and voted her into office on an antiwar platform.
Dave Ecklein