Obama's threat to undermine anti-war Democrats: will it backfire? Time to target pro-war Democrats?

[Karmadillo]

I think Solomon is right on this issue. If Democrats support the war, we need to recruit and support anti-war Democrats to run against them.

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/3903

Obama and Anti-War Democrats
June, 23 2009By
Norman Solomon

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.

Now what?

Well, for one thing, progressives across the country should plan on giving special support to Edwards, Grayson, Massa, Pingree, Polis and Speier in 2010. If we take the White House at its word, they may find themselves running for re-election while President Obama withholds his support - in retaliation for their anti-war votes.

But it's not enough to just play defense. We also need to be supporting - or initiating - grassroots campaigns to unseat pro-war members of Congress.

In the Los Angeles area, the military-crazed and ultra-corporate Congresswoman Jane Harman will face the progressive dynamo Marcy Winograd in the Democratic primary next year.

more...

[MarjorieG]

1. I understand there needs to be an anti-war movement, but the inability to leave tomorrow doesn't

mean someone, Obama, is pro-war. Neo-cons have left messes everywhere, none moreso than in the Mideast. But our side has a blind spot for taking in any realities of security, and how we get to there from here.

There are captives of the military industry deserving of unseating, who gladly would ramp up with neo-cons again. But there are gray areas to defense we never allow.

[MadHound]

10. The thing is Obama isn't planning on leaving tomorrow, next month or even next year

Despite his rhetoric about pulling out of Iraq, the reality of the matter is that we're going to have up to 100,000 troops in Iraq for a number of years under Obama's so called withdrawal plan. Meanwhile, we're doubling down in Afghanistan, a quagmire if there ever was one.

The fact of the matter is that, much like Vietnam, we can continue to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, pissing away money and lives, and whenever we finally decide to leave, the situation will be no better than it is now because in reality it is our presence that is the biggest part of the problem in both regions.

Our best option at this point is to get the hell out of both regions now. But instead we're going to continue to waste lives and money on a war that cannot be won, that cannot have even a decent resolution. There comes a time when you've got to cut your losses, and that time is now.

[Echo In Light]

2. Wouldn't matter. Good people always join corrupt systems and end up serving the corruption

Besides, anti-war Dems would be crucified as "unelectable" within the mainstream, and in the M$M - not to mention by a large % of Dem voters (who are actually moderate republicans, yet apparently don't realize it) ...and if it looked like too many Lefties may just get their foot in the door, the corporate/right-wing would simply resort to election theft, and no matter how obvious it may be, most Americans won't even know about it, or care, and would just have more "crazy conspiracy theorists" to hate on.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. That's what happened to my "progressive" Congressman. He was on Karl Rove's

enemy congresskritter list, received tons of money for re-election against not a single viable candidate and voted to fund the war.

[Mari333]

3. I will NEVER vote again for a Dem who has voted for War Funding

never again.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Same here.

[LoZoccolo]

7. That's cool. You can just let a Republican win who has voted for war funding...

...and will vote for a new war to go along with it.

[frylock]

9. threats like that are soooooooooo 2006..

if that were to happen, who is ultimately to blame? the republican-lite "Dems" and their enablers, or the people who are sick and fucking tired of the status quo?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Only vote I can remember where I agreed with the Republicans

They voted the right way but for the wrong reasons. But the only way we are going to end this insane war is to stop funding it.

[FLAprogressive]

8. Obama is pro-war....it's obvious.