Blank Check Democrats & The Danger of Becoming A Blank Check Movement

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Thursday, May 10, 2007 by Working For Change

Blank Check Democrats & The Danger of Becoming A Blank Check Movement
by David Sirota

blank check: n. 1. A signed check with no amount to be paid filled in 2. Total freedom of action; carte blanche.

In this simple, two-pronged American Heritage Dictionary definition, we find the two major problems afflicting Iraq War politics today in Congress.

The House, you may know, is prepared to vote today on a new short-term Iraq War supplemental bill that includes so-called “benchmark” requirements. After roughly 60 days, the President would be required to submit reports to Congress measuring Iraqi progress in meeting basic benchmarks, and the Congress would then have to vote on whether to approve more war spending based on those reports. This solid proposal, which follows the solid proposal that Bush recently vetoed, is the most basic form of constitutional oversight, yet Republicans and a faction of Democrats are considering voting to strip these requirements out of the bill and thus making it into the literal definition of a blank check.

We shouldn’t be surprised that Republicans want to give the White House a blank check. Despite a highly publicized meeting yesterday where moderate GOP lawmakers supposedly told President Bush they didn’t support the war, the Republican Party is firmly for indefinitely continuing the Iraq War and at odds with the vast majority of the American people who want an end to the war.

It is the Blank Check Democrats, however, that raise the tough questions. Here we are six months after an election that delivered the Congress to the Democrats based on the American public’s desire to end the war. Here we are at a moment when polls show the public firmly supports the Democratic leadership’s effort to enforce accountability on the White House when it comes to the war. And yet here we are, once again at the mercy of a small faction of Blank Check Democrats threatening to essentially overturn the 2006 election’s mandate and give the big middle finger to the majority of the American people on the most important national security issue in a generation.

We will see today just how far these Blank Check Democrats are willing to go in undermining their own party and the will of the American public. But we will also see just how far Democratic leaders are willing to go in making their anti-war rhetoric legislative reality. Because remember - these fights do not happen in a vacuum, as much as the Washington pundit class would like us to believe they do. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and senior Democrats have many levers of power at their disposal, including committee assignments and re-election fundraising and support for primary challengers. Whether Pelosi uses these levers - and whether rank-and-file Democrats demand she uses these levers - will tell us a lot not only about the Democratic Party’s commitment to ending the war, but about it’s commitment to all the other promises America was given in exchange for its votes in 2006.

At precisely these moments of truth, it is also important for the progressive movement to look at itself in the mirror. There has been much self-congratulatory chatter in recent weeks about the resurgent progressive “infrastructure” in Washington, but the fact that we face such a tenuous situation today in the House is troubling commentary.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/10/1104/

[The Magistrate]

1. The Acid Test In This Sort Of Criticism, Ma'am

Is whether the disparagement is aimed at waverers on both flanks of the Party, or at only one. This writer fails that test, and so reveals himself a mere factionalist hack, who would see the wreck of the whole enterprise rather than do what is necessary to wield the whole of it effectively.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Bush is playing Democrats for suckers! Pelosi must put impeachment back on the table!

A man that has shown such little regard for the Constitution is not about to bend to the demands of a political party that has offered little in the form of opposition to his policies for the last 6 years. As much as we wish we had more Democrats like Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, or Maxine Waters, the sad reality is that there are far too many Democrats afraid to hold Bush and his thugs accountable for their crimes.

The Pentagon has already said that the surge will last well into next spring. Bush will continue to buy for time while paying lip service to compromise. Bush is toying with a Democratic leadership that he views with utter contempt. Bush behaviour is that of a delusional man embarked on a Divine mission. Bush probably asks himself how dare Pelosi and Reid presume to dictate terms to him, Gawds' Anointed One.

[The Magistrate]

5. We Will See How It Works Out, Ma'am

He may not have money by autumn, and viewed coldly, the longer the troops remain in Iraq, the worse for the Republicans. The persons you name are, in my view, every bit as much a problem as the freshman Blue Dogs, from the point of view of maintaining a cohesive legisative bloc pressing a workable policy to crack the resolve of the White House. You will not find me wishing we had more like them, anymore than you will find me wishing we had more wavering Blue Dogs.

Impeachment is hardly a pancea, as it will not, repeat not, result in conviction and removal from office. It would be a grand exercise in political theater, that could have useful effects on the public in the up-coming election, but it will not have any immediate effect on events, or force the withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq.

[Forkboy]

4. Respectfully,I'd like to see that same standards applied elsewhere.

There are many centrists who speak damn harshly of the left without a note of concern about "wielding the whole of it effectively".When someone left of center points out the waverers in the middle,who are far more likely to vote Repub than anyone far left ever would,suddenly it's the left trying to wreck the whole enterprise.


My dear sir, they don't debate. Each of them merely issues an ultimatum, and in what a tone! It all goes to show what extraordinary people they are, each more unequivocal than the other.

[The Magistrate]

6. There Is Something To That, Sir

Though there are some complicating elements.

One of these is numeric. There are a good deal more people, both voters and office-holders, who are toward the center than are to the far left. Power in a coalition comes from two things; the size of the faction, and whether the coallition can or cannot do without the faction. The largest factions will naturally expect to get more of their way. The smaller factions will have little power, except the negative one of a threat to bolt. In the situation of the Party recently, with the general electorate balanced so narrowly between the standards of the two parties, no faction is so small but that its threat to bolt cannot be regarded with equinamity. But the exercise of power so rooted is bound to be greatly resented by the more numerous factions, who will feel themselves being wagged by the tail. The smaller faction will be tempted to over-play its hand, and the larger factions tempted to find some way the smaller can be done without.

From my point of view, if an official does not vote with the Party, and a voter does not vote for the Party, it makes no difference at all whether they vote with or for the Republicans, or with or for some other party: the end result is fewer votes for the Democratic Party either way. And given the way our system is constructed, that generally translates into benefit for the Republicans, even if the vote is not cast for them directly. The argument that the parties are 'really' interchangeable carries no weight whatever with me: the differences may vary in degree issue to issue, and might not be as great as would be ideally desireable, but they are real, and it does make a difference to the lives of millions of people which party is in charge of our government. We do better when Democrats are in charge. And the things we on the left would like to see done are flat impossible when Republicans are in charge. Obviously, putting the government into the hand sof a Democratic Executive and Majority is not the sum of all hopes, but it is the essential first step to getting anything more of our hopes realized.

[Forkboy]

7. The time is ripe for a new approach by the Democrats.

By it's very nature the center consists of people both on the right and the left.What do we give up by appealing to that right part? I remember right after Kerry lost in '04 there were actually a handful of threads here complaining that the reason we lost was because we supported unions and/or gay rights.Wouldn't you think we could gain even more votes by strongly and consistently standing up for these issues instead of appealing to people who only share those beliefs when it's convenient? There would be no threat to bolt,and you'd easily gain more than enough votes to tilt that balanced electorate in our favor.

None of the ideals we hold are radical.All us agree on some fundamental beliefs here.Human rights,unions,better education,more support for the middle and lower class,no dumbass wars for oil.But the more we water the message down,the more we go along to get along,the longer it takes to solve these problems.And right now we shouldn't have to.I'm pushing 40 and I've never seen the Republicans this hammered and reviled by nearly all quarters worldwide.If we have to play it safe with a President at 28% approval ratings what does that say about us,our convictions,and our ability to send a strong voice for the right things?

The complaint I've heard the most in my life about Democrats is that they don't stand for anything."The Republicans suck but at least they stand for something". It's obviously not true,but it shows how the Right has been able to use simple,strong statements to woo dummies.Why don't we trying using strong statements to woo the smart people instead of their wafflers?

I have two awesome nephews,and they're looking at living in a world that will be radically different from what we entered into,and sadly it isn't in a positive way.We're handing them a pile of shit,to be honest.My opinion is that the status quo simply wont do anymore if they are to live in any kind of relative decency.

I was told in 88 I had to vote against Bush.In 92 it was Pappy again. 96,Dole. 2000,Bush. 2004,Bush. 2008,whatever bozo they nominate.All this time I've been voting how I should and things just keep getting worse,sometimes quickly,sometimes slowly,but always worse.Many of our candidates can stop that downward spiral.A couple will continue it,only at a slower and friendlier pace.

We need to make a choice about what groups of people and what set of ideals we want to be associated with.Regardless of whether the charge of there being no difference between Democrats and Republicans is true or not,the public perception is out there,and we won't convince anyone otherwise the more we flirt with the Right to win.Contrary to what some think,the people aren't sheeple,and I think we should try appealing to people's intelligence instead of dumbing ours down.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I think there's one point in there you need to rethink.

"From my point of view, if an official does not vote with the Party, and a voter does not vote for the Party, it makes no difference at all whether they vote with or for the Republicans, or with or for some other party: the end result is fewer votes for the Democratic Party either way."

Voting for the Republicans is exactly twice as bad as voting for a third party or not voting. The relevant number is (Democratic votes - Republican votes), not Democratic votes; fewer votes for the Democrats is only one half of the equation.

A vote for a third party is identical to not bothering to vote at all: it's a cop-out, but it's only half as bad as voting Republican.

[Triana]

2. This is just exactly the kind of crap...

...that caused me to change my reg to Indy.

:mad:

[Forkboy]

9. Here in Mass it's better to be "Unenrolled".

As of a few months ago that's my designation,though I didn't really plan on it.Dealing with some health issues and completely forgot to send the registration back in.But then I found out that being unenrolled let's me vote in all the primaries,so I can vote for their biggest loser and vote for our best guy.

If you're registered under a party you can only vote in that party's primary.

I also admit to liking the idea of walking into an voting room filled with Repukes and secretly being against the bastards. :)

[The Magistrate]

10. Vote Newt, Sir!

That's the ticket we want to see....

[Forkboy]

11. I'm leaning towards batshit crazy McCain.

Though rest assured,should Newt enter the race he moves to the top spot. :)

[The Magistrate]

12. It Is A Groaning Table Of Goodies, Sir, Certainly

A race between Sen. Clinton and Newt would be as pure a referendum on the nineties verus the noughts as could be contrived, and there could be no doubt of the outcome....

"These are the good old days."