[sf-core] Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq protest [sic]

[Robert Naiman]

This makes perfect sense, when you recognize the obvious fact that the
two are not politically equivalent.

Of course, it's Carl's democratic right to call for a boycott of the
event that I'm trying to organize. Not very comradely, though. Can't
we let 100 flowers bloom?

On 7/16/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Let me get this straight: you're working to get 51 votes in the Senate,
> because you can't get 41?
>
> You're right that once elected members of the US Congress can say
> anything they want, they're not bound by their constituents' wishes --
> and, remarkably enough, the Congressional Democrats have chosen as a
> group to reject doing what they were elected to do, end the war.
>
> Instead of ending the war (as they could) they want to use its
> unpopularity to denigrate the other faction and increase their own
> electoral chances.  They're actually willing to prolong the war for that.
>
> Instead of participating in rallies organized by Democratic party front
> groups, we should demand the Democrats do what they were elected to do.
>   --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Depends who you mean by "they."
> >
> > 29 Senators voted for the Feingold-Reid withdrawal bill. The prospect
> > of getting 41 Senators to filibuster war funding is fairly remote.
> >
> > Sadly, we don't live in a European parliamentary democracy. For better
> > and worse - mostly worse - there is no such thing as the "Democratic"
> > position on anything. If you can win a Democratic primary and get
> > elected, you can say anything you want.
> >
> > But in any event, I submit that one doesn't have to support or oppose
> > into any particular legislative strategy for ending the war to attend
> > tomorrow's protest. It only takes 51 votes in the Senate, apparently,
> > to confirm a Federalist Society hack to the Supreme Court. It should
> > only require 51 votes to stop the war.
> >
> > On 7/16/07, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu
> > <mailto:galliher%40uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> >  > This is a matter of barking up the wrong memorial.
> >  >
> >  > If the Democrats were serious about ending the war, instead of just
> >  > wanting it to use the the war to benefit Democrats, they could do so by
> >  > using the filibuster. Instead of voting further funding for the war,
> >  > which they continue to do, they could prevent any war funding measures
> >  > from passing the Senate. That requires only 41 votes, which they have.
> >  >
> >  > --CGE
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Robert Naiman wrote:
> >  > > There will be a protest tomorrow of the use of the Senate "filibuster"
> >  > > to block efforts to end the war in Iraq.
> >  > >
> >  > > Tuesday, 5pm, Veterans Memorial, Broadway and Main, Urbana.
> >  > >
> >  > > http://political.moveon.org/event/counterfilibuster/39352
> > <http://political.moveon.org/event/counterfilibuster/39352>
>