Something to renew faith

By Greg Prince

It's been an interesting weekend, following an exhausting week on many fronts.

Here's a story from Egypt that brings a smile to my face, and goes far toward reminding us that humanity really is worth saving.

Remember this story next time a wingnut tries to tell you there is no such thing as moderate Muslims:

Egypt's majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as "human shields" for last night's mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

"We either live together, or we die together," was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the "human shield" idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular Muslim televangelist and preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

"This is not about us and them," said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly Street. "We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together."

(Cross-posted from Greg Prince's Blog.)

Why waste all that typing on an email

By Creature

As you guys have become acutely aware of, I have no time to blog (or, I'm so dispirited, I don't feel much like it). However, I have had time to have some spirited email exchanges, see my last two substantive posts, with a very moderate buddy (and reader) who insists on making the false equivalency argument that both the Left and the Right suck ass and are only interested in destroying the other. I call him a militant moderate. Well, we got into another row yesterday after I sent him a link to this Tom Tomorrow comic:



And the "discussion" flowed:

Him: Calling me a tepid moderate seems out of line on a nice Friday morning – and, besides, as you have noted before, I am pretty militant in my moderatism.

Here is what I do not get: You and your southpaw crew apparently think that the right is out to deliberately destroy and run the US into the ground (just like the right thinks the left is). That is my main problem with the battle lines that have been drawn. I simply just refuse to believe that either side is thinking “how can I, not only obstruct the other side, but DESTROY the country today.” Each side believes what they are doing is right, and both sides want what they see as “the best for the country.” You can disagree with their theory, but I just cannot believe that one side or the other wants the country to implode – cue you calling me naïve….

Me: You’re naïve.

If the left were as absolutists as you think then maybe you’re right. However, the left (or should I say Obama) has been bending over backwards to meet in the middle (the health plan was a GOP plan from the '90s and Mitt's from when he was governor of Massachusetts, the tax cuts were larded into the stimulus to satisfy the GOP—and they still didn’t vote for it, Cap & Trade was a GOP idea—-I could go on) and they have gotten nothing in return. They may not want to destroy the country, but they want to destroy Obama, make sure he’s a one-termer. It’s politics over the good of the country. This is what I’m talking about and you never acknowledge this. You are blinded by your militant moderation.

Him: I think we have played this record before.

Why do they want to “destroy” Obama? Because in their minds, according to their political theories, he is not doing what is best for the country.

Why did the left want to “destroy” Bush – for EXACTLY the same reasons – they didn’t agree with his politics and thought he was taking the country in the wrong direction.

Why did the right want to “destroy” Clinton? You get the point.

Me: Right, but I just gave you concrete examples of the Left trying, in good faith, to deal, so it’s not the same. Can you at least admit that?

Also, too, the Left gave Bush every opportunity and benefit of the doubt at the start (pretty much until Iraq). The battle cry to destroy him did not happen until then (not even from me). Obama got no such luxury (and he didn’t even send people to die in an illegal war of choice).

Here’s a thought experiment for you: If 9/11 happened under Obama what would the GOP do? Now, think back, when 9/11 happened the country and all Dem politicians were overwhelming supportive.

And another one: If Lehman’s collapse and the banking crisis of Sept. '08 happened under Obama, what would the GOP have done? It happened under Bush and the Dems banded together to help despite that fact that it helped a GOP President.

I’m just saying it’s not as black and white as your middle-of-the-road mind would like.

Him: Hypotheticals are not really useful. I know which conclusion you draw, but I do not believe you can play “what if” like that. Do you seriously think that the GOP would not rally behind the president in the face of an attack on the country? Also, you make it sound like the left was doing Bush a favor – they were overwhelmingly supportive because it was the right thing to do.

Yes, you provided one example. If you are representing to me that in the history of American politics, the Right has always been obstructionist, and have NEVER tried to deal in good faith, I guess an uninformed guy like myself would have to take you at your word. Is that what you are telling me?

Right, its not black and white, but its not either black and every single shade of gray on the one side and only the purest white on the other, like the left often represents.

Me: You’re killing me.

“If you are representing to me that in the history of American politics, the Right has always been obstructionist, and have NEVER tried to deal in good faith, I guess an uninformed guy like myself would have to take you at your word. Is that what you are telling me?”

What I’ve been trying to tell you, and you so stubbornly won’t hear, is that times have changed. Jeez. Yes, there was a time when there was dealing in good faith. I long for those times. Newt in '94 changed ALL that and they’ve gotten worse ever since. I long for those magical times where Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan sat down to deal. It just doesn’t happen today. They do not give Obama an inch. Hell, Clinton gave them everything they wanted (welfare reform, anyone) and they IMPEACHED him anyway. This is what you refuse to see. Again, times have changed. Now, this is a message Dems (and especially Obama) must get too. They still think they can deal in good faith, but there’s none right now. Maybe that will change, but that is not the reality of today.

Him: Ok, Ok, jeez, keep your pants on. I do not refuse to see anything.

Your Clinton point is weak. I am sure you don’t mean that the GOP should have ignored Clinton's lies on the stand (that is what he was impeached for, right? That is a question), because Clinton scratched their back?

Me: I give up.

Him: Quitter.

Me: Just call me Sarah.

Recess is over soon

By Carol Gee

Congress travels back to Washington next week. How will their trips be? Will the brilliant and statesman-like airline travel intervention by our current president (OCP) make their airport experiences any better? Do they return with renewed thankfulness or a sense of dread? Did they find their dollars buying less on "Black Friday?" Today is Monday, and personally, Congress' return to work in December should put me in a happy spirit, but it does not. I dread the upcoming defense appropriations fights between our Democratic leaders and our current president (OCP).

Each side needs to accept the reality of Iraq. Perhaps Senators and Representatives got a chance to catch up with the news while at home. If any of them happened to be reading news online this morning it would be good if they got to the reality check presented by Michael J.W. Stickings' post earlier here at The Reaction. I quote from his hard-hitting introduction to "America's Iraqi death squads":

So -- what's really going on in Iraq? If the warmongers are to be believed, violence is down and the light at the end of the tunnel is growing brighter and brighter, all hail Bush and Petraeus and the Surge of Surges. Sure, it's been a tough go, but now, at long last, success is at hand thanks to the sticktoitiveness of those who have been determined to guide the war through the tumult and the hardship, those resolute enough to stand firm in the face of massive opposition and partisan cowardice. Victory is near, the glory theirs.

The problem is, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, and, like Vietnam (like any war), this is not a war that can be judged by the numbers, and especially not by numbers selected and de-contextualized by those using them to support the warmongering case.

Members of Congress who vote against their consciences must have big internal psychological dilemmas. Their ambivalence consists of two polar self-interested opposites. One says, "If I do not vote for the bill that has a chance to be signed by the president, I will be seen as part of a do-nothing congress and risk my re-election." The other says, "If I vote the way I know I should, I will be seen as weak on national security and risk my re-election." But with each passing week the Middle East policies of OCP are making things worse.

The well-being of the United States in the world community cannot remain in the hands of this one man, despite what the Constitution says. These two links illustrate that opinion is divided about the extent of damage done by this administration to America's reputation. Congress' reputation is also at a low ebb. It is time for members of the congress to get over this set of false choices and start listening to their consciences.

There is a third way, as my favorite ex-president was fond of saying. Harry Reid found his "third way" with the pro-forma meetings of the Senate to block OCP's planned radical recess appointments. Blogger "TeddySanFran" at Firedoglake reports, however, that Reid is being castigated for it in the mainstream media. The media will be full of blaming articles in upcoming months. And we bloggers will be trying to figure out what's wrong with the body politic for us to be in this mess. Voter apathy is potentially a big problem according to a very interesting discussion at TPMCafe's "cscs" Diary. That discussion has stuck with me this weekend, adding to my concerns. On the other hand, there is this.

Coming to my very own state - Blogger, "sccs" at Texas Kaos has put me in a happier mood with this welcome announcement:

"Just announced: Netroots Nation, formerly Yearly Kos, will be hosted in Austin, TX, July 17-20, 2008."

More good news from Texas -- My “creativity and dreaming” post yesterday at Making Good Mondays is about Europe's part in NASA's upcoming mission, STS-122, set to launch December 6.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Iraq war protests becoming more organized

By Carol Gee

Clouds of dissent are gathering into what may be a stormy summer of organized objections to our current president's war in Iraq. The movement actually has a name:

Iraq Summer -- While the situation in Iraq gets worse and worse, the number of casualties increases, and the adminstration demands more time, the American people may be starting to formally organize into a loose coalition of war protestors. Summer is a good time. Students are out of school, people take vacations, and we try to get out of the house to find cool breezes. And lawmakers have returned to Washington to work on appropriating money to fund this hated war. Here is the good news about what is coming. Politico.com carried a great article about the " 'Iraq Summer' campaign," written by Jeanne Cummings and John Bresnahan, from which I quote,

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, an umbrella organization of anti-war groups, began a extensive robocalling project aimed at constituents of 12 senators and 52 House members, urging them to call the congressional offices of the targeted members and press them to vote for expected anti-war amendments.

. . . The intense lobbying campaign comes as Senate Republican leaders are scrambling for a response to the latest Iraq developments, including an escalation in violence and signals from the White House that a mid-July progress report will show that Iraqi political leaders are failing to meet the benchmarks for progress sent out by President Bush, party insiders say.

. . . All this maneuvering comes in the wake of the launch of the anti-war organizations' "Iraq Summer" campaign, which included dispatching 100 grass-roots organizers to 15 states and 40 congressional districts.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are back in session. And Republican legislators are increasingly uncomfortable. Their time back in the district may have forced them to pay attention to their constituents' soured opinion of the Iraq war. As Republican lawmakers begin to talk with each other they will inevitably begin to shift position. It has already begun. Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard calls them "The Nervous Caucus."

Update around noon, Washington time: Republicans blocked a vote on Senator Jim Webb's amendment to insure adequate "dwell time" at home between deployments, 56-41, four votes short of the 60 votes needed. A few "defectors" voted with the Democrats, including Senators Warner, Collins, Snowe, Sununu, Smith, Coleman, and Hagel, the amendment's co-sponsor.

My list of Republican senatorial critics of our current president's war policy follows: Senators Alexander, Brownback, Coleman, Collins, Domenici, Gregg, Hagel, Hutchison, Lugar, Smith, Snowe, Voinovich, and Warner. See also this ( 7/7/07) L.A. Times article by Noam Levey, discussing how facing reelection next year is often what motivates these defectors.

It is best to look to foreign news sources, in my opinion, for the most accurate coverage of what is happening with the change of direction of a beginning number of Republican senators and House members in the United States Congress. Fortunately previous congressional legislation has attempted to hold both the current U.S. administration and the Iraqis to some simple benchmarks, the first of which happens in a few days. Two good sources:

• The (7/8/07) Financial Times headlined, "Republican rebellion over Iraq escalates." Andrew Ward wrote the excellent story, from which I quote:
  
  

  The Republican rebellion against the war in Iraq widened over the weekend as more of the party’s senators voiced dissent from President George W. Bush’s strategy.
  
  Republican unity on Iraq has shattered in recent weeks, amid mounting pessimism about the ability of US forces to bring stability to the country.
  
  Weakening Republican support for the war has left Mr Bush increasingly isolated as congressional Democrats prepare for a fresh barrage of votes aimed at forcing a US withdrawal.

• For an example of a very good situational overview, the BBC News (7/10/07) headlined, "US Senate steps up Iraq pressure" yesterday. I quote:
  
  

  The US Senate is debating amendments to the annual military budget designed to put pressure on the White House to start withdrawing US forces from Iraq.
  
  . . . The administration is to report to Congress on Iraq progress by 15 July. The interim report on 18 measures of progress is required by law under a previous funding bill. Bush administration officials say the picture will be mixed.
  
  Reports quoting unnamed officials have said it will conclude that the Iraqi government has failed to meet any of the political and economic benchmarks it has been set.

Specifics of Republican strategy - Senators John Warner and Susan Collins, according to the Washington Post, are among several Republican Senators joining with Democrats on key amendments to the war spending bill, often in opposition to party leaders. Individual senators are behaving in remarkably bipartisan ways. And they are looking for existing vehicles within which they can act. Senator Collins is looking to the Iraq Study Group Report for inspiration for an alternate plan, according to the article:

The Maine moderate, who faces reelection next year in her antiwar state, is part of another bipartisan effort that would make last year's Iraq Study Group recommendations the new policy for Iraq, with a goal of removing combat forces by March 31, 2008.

. . . Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), a respected GOP voice on war policy, and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, are collaborating on an amendment that would meld the bipartisan efforts. Warner said that he will not comment on the initiative until after Bush presents an interim progress report on Iraq, which could come as early as tomorrow. But, according to lawmakers familiar with the deliberations, Warner and Lugar will try to merge some of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, such as a renewed diplomatic push, with forced mission changes similar to those in the Nelson-Collins amendment.

Using the Iraq Study Group's report is also looking like the best "cover" for wavering Republican House members, including my favorite, Rep. Christopher Shays, according to (6/27/07) CNN.com. Quote:

Earlier in June, several Republican members of Congress called for the Bush administration to follow the recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which Bush had resisted to follow.

This week, Republican congressmen Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Frank Wolf of Virginia are calling to reconvene the ISG to review Iraq policy and offer new recommendations.

The pace of Republican defections has not been dizzying. But, happily, it has been steady. I am cautiously optimistic. Time with the folks back home, a goodly number of whom are now organized and applying pressure, may have gotten these folks' attention when the time to cast votes arrives. I will keep you posted, so you can join in the application of citizen pressure as needed.

My “creativity and dreaming” post today at Good Second Mondays is about Native American dancers.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Warm fuzzy words

Guest post by Greg Prince

What exactly is the point of bipartisanship?

Seriously!

A few days ago at TMV I was captivated by a post by Pete Abel entitled "Bipartisan Cooperation: Maybe There's Hope". The piece itself talks about the cooperation on a non-binding slap to the White House on Iraq, but I wonder how much the "hope" for cooperation has been thought through.

The right-wing base isn't interested in a Democratic Lite GOP, nor are the netroots desperate for a Republican Lite Democratic Party. It's true that many people are in the middle politically, but of those who are engaged in politics it's not that they don't have opinions so much as their opinions don't align to any single platform. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone -- the argument has long been that moderates do stand for things and do have opinions but that they just aren't in lockstep with a "movement" or subservient to an outside agenda.

It has often been said that most people, when they speak of bipartisanship, really mean "You be bi while I be partisan". With that in mind, it is interesting to look at a recent Pew study, as Chris Bowers of MyDD did, which shows a public unified on the idea of bipartisanship but disinterested in compromising their own principles on any major issue.

Three in four respondents say they like politicians who are willing to compromise, but nearly seven in ten say they like politicians who stick to their positions even when unpopular. In other words, bipartisanship and gridlock both have veto-proof majorities.

It gets even stickier when looking at actual issues. Nearly three quarters responded that absolutely no compromise is possible on abortion. And you're in within the margin of error of majorities on the environment, immigration, Iraq, and tax policy. As Bowers notes:

The next time the public doesn't like someone because s/he or is a "flip flopper," perhaps they should look themselves in the mirror. More importantly, the next time a pundit or reporter states that the country is looking for compromise and bipartisanship, they should note that the country doesn't know what exactly it wants compromise on, and that they also like leaders who stand on principle.

I'm all in favor of good government -- and I've voted for candidates of both parties as circumstances warranted. The problem is that most of the time people who favor bipartisanship don't really have a clear grasp of what types of policies are to result from the groundswell of good karma. The least objectionable path isn't always the one which ultimately leads to the greatet good.

Consider this from the Omaha College Democrats Blog:

My fear from the beginning, when Nelson and Warner came out with this tamer resolution, was that it set the bar so low, no progress could come from it. In the name of getting as many Republican Senators to sign on as possible, the proposal was basically neutered of any effectiveness. And the further right you go on something, you inevitably will lose someone on the left. This couldn't be any more transparent a political ploy if they tried: it's simply a meaningless resolution designed to give cover to Senators like Warner and Collins who have to seek reelection in 2008.

Exactly. I am often wont to cite an eleventh commandment, "Cover thine own". But it's true. Resolutions like the one Abel hails are largely symbolic, designed to provide political cover to both sides of the aisle, not actually to solve any of the questions that will still need to be addressed.

Liberaltopia has good words, too. Yes, compromise is sometimes necessary. But:

The thing is, our system is set up, in both the courts and in Congress, to be adversarial and partisan. The competition of ideas keeps democracies from bogging down in the sludge of one-party rule and narrow-minded thinking.

All in all, some perspective is in order. Bipartisanship for its own sake accomplishes nothing. Compromise when appropriate, and always seek out the best solution for a given situation. But when the opposition is wrong, it must be opposed. And don't apologize for it.