How to Promote Defundamentalism

(Isn’t that title cute?  I just came up with that.  It doesn’t even show up on Google.)

While I am not a Defundamentalist, I’m happy to see those of you are help to influence the political debate so long as (per Turk’s stance) it avoids ripping apart the party.  I just don’t think that blaming the Democrats in toto or concentrating fire on Pelosi (who would likely be succeeded by someone worse, Hoyer or Emanuel) is helping.  You need a concrete and theoretically achievable plan if you want to truly “make them fear us,” as y’all like to say.  So here, direct from a comment on DKos, is what I think you should do:

Get pledges from 41 Senators saying that they will filibuster any defense funding bill that does not provide money solely for withdrawal.  Get them to pledge that they will maintain that filibuster forever if necessary, even if it looks like Gingrich in December 1995, even if the polls swing wildly against Democrats for not allowing a defense bill to pass.

If you have 41 such pledges, you will have a serious threat.  That’s not where I’m putting my efforts, because I don’t think there’s more than a negligible chance that we’ll get 41 of them.  But that’s exactly what they’d have to do to win a standoff with Bush, so that is the campaign you should be running.  If you can’t get 41 pledges, then I think you should think twice about what you’re doing and why, but I don’t expect you to agree.

218 such pledges from House Dems would work as well, but I don’t think you’ll get those either.  So, there’s your assignment if you want to work your asses off.  I predict that it will bring all of our party’s hidden sores right into the open, leading people who would like to smoothe over the differences to hate you, but that has to be part of your plan if you want defunding to work.

Good luck, and don’t say I never did anything for the cause.

53 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Against impossible odds?

    I’ve always dreamt of leading a charge.

    I like this plan.  I’m excited to be a part of it.  Let’s do it.

  2. You don’t get it.  And I don’t think you ever will.  It’s as though if it isn’t some mechanically political idea it has no value at all in discourse.  And I think you are wrong in that.

    What a lot of us are saying has nothing to do with political strategies.  We are giving fair warning that if Pelosi and Reid do not do their jobs – not our jobs, their jobs – there will be real consequences.

    You can go on as much as you like about the narrow political strategery game.  Fact is, Pelosi and Reid are in the catbird seat right now and your off the cuff “gift” does not speak to the reality of the situation.

    You can be as cavalier as you like about the fact that folks will die (both in Iraq and in New Orleans most prominently) if there is no real oppositin to this misAdministration.  I cannot be cavalier about that, and reduce it all to a political equation.  That does not make me a purist, MD.

    We’ll see what Reid and Pelosi do.  Your notions aren’t all there is insofar as what can be done.  Hell, Ben Nelson is coming out against the war, who knows what will happen.

    There are real people suffering here, MD, and a lot of us are feeling that — some of us have loved ones who are suffering.  I suggest you show a wee bit of humility in addressing these issues — and a wee bit of humanity as well.

    • Armando on September 8, 2007 at 04:24

    I suggest you consider something entirely different, pledges to NOT vote for a bill without a binding timeline.

    171 voted for the McGovern Amendment.

    142 voted against the lasy supplemental.

    70 pledged to vote for no further funding AT ALL unless it was for withdrawal.

    The battle is in the House and in fact CAN be won.

    Consider which Democrats will vote with a Republican bill and which was will not.

    Let those who support the Debacle vote for funding it and those who do not not vote for funding it.

    IF all 201 Republicans vote for a GOP bill and 17 Dems vote for it – we’ll know who the problem is.

    Stoller’s Buish Dog Dems mark themselves.

    And who wants to be known as the folks who kept Iraq War going?

    If this is done in this way – I guarantee you youll get a bill with some teeth.

    The one thing you do not understand and Dems do not understand is negotiation.

    Worst group of negotitators I have ever seen.

    Getting prepunked is what you and others suggested in March and of course Dems wqere thoroughly punked.

    The Netroots utterly failed – thanks to Move On and Stolelr and the Gang (they have never admitted their grievous errors).

    This time they seem to be on the right track.

    Frankly, you are not even in the ballpark.

    I think your views are pretty irrelevant to this. And I’llo tell you why – you do not even understand the roles of the Netroots and the progressive Dems and the Dem caucus and how they must behave to achieve anything in this.

    Like Move On, one sees a certain delusion of being the negotiator rather than an agitator or a pressure group.

    We have to be the Left flank and uncompromising, so that the Out of Iraq Caucus is the same in the House. When we think we are doing the negotitating is when we lose.

    • Armando on September 8, 2007 at 04:53

    and I appreciate this site that allows me to comment as I like without having someone e-mail the owner about me.

    Buhdy will certainly tell such a complainer that we fight, and we move on.

Comments have been disabled.