CT Congressional Dems: What are they good for?

Did you not listen to Pres. Obama (0.00 / 0)

when he was candidate Obama?

He said "we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in".

He was also VERY CLEAR that he was going to INCREASE OUR TROOP STEGNTH in Afganistan throughout the campaign.

I'm far more upset with the fact that he promised to be a "FEIRCE ADVOCATE" on GLBT issues and hasn't and for me the lack of a  " strong public option" in the health care bill could be a dealbreaker in my support for both Pres. Obama and Sen Dodd.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 13:54:38 PM CDT

So many potential deal breakers... (0.00 / 0)

The post was directed at the state's Congressional delegation more than Obama. And, yes, I was aware that Obama said in the campaign that he would increase troop strength in Afghanistan. I doubt I'm the only one who hoped he would visit that ill-considered notion later. But that's on me and others who apparently invested too much hope in Obama.

What is galling about this war supplemental vote overall is that there were many Democrats who voted against these bills when Bush was President--and it was going to pass anyway--who then switched once Obama wanted it. Whether that's true of any of the members of the CT delegation (it obviously isn't of Himes who wasn't in congress then), I don't know. What I do know is that none of the members of the CT delegation can now claim any kind of antiwar bonafides. It is their war; they've paid for it. I'm particularly disappointed in Chris Murphy on this account.

Obviously, the awful stuff on GLBT issues is justifiably provoking anger. And I too will be furious if there isn't a real public option in the health care bill. I'm also angry that Obama is completely trashing his supposed commitment to "transparency"--see many strong posts by Glenn Greenwald at Salon on this score. And that the Obama administration is complicit in protecting the Bush regime torturers and war criminals from facing justice.

But this post was directed at letting progressive Dems in CT know that our liberal Democratic Congresspeople ponied up for more war, more mayhem, more bloodshed, more dead civilians.

---

by: CTHankster @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 18:49:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even Worse (0.00 / 0)

I can't see how it is a "war" at all, at least by my definition of war (was a little boy in the fifties watching war movies on TV). Even Vietnam had battles and areas held by each side. This is just Occupations, harassed by a determined Resistance, and in countries that have resources that we need.

Ahh, but what do I know, I'm just the 9/11 Inside Job Conspiracy Theory guy.

Sorry if this comment is so weak, but I'm just really floored by the reality made obvious by the vote results.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 19:05:31 PM CDT

anyone up for some Dem primaries? (0.00 / 0)

Granted, I'm a Republican, but a Ron Paul one.

I note that Delauro, Larson and Murphy are all:

1) pro-bailout
2) pro-war
3) anti-transparency
4) anti-good government

(3 & 4 relate to the failure of all of CTs 5 members to support HR 1207 - Audit the Fed... introduced by Ron Paul and cosponsored by Dennis Kucinich... along with a sister bill in the Senate S604... introduced by Bernie Sanders.  Also, HR 1207 now has 232 cosponsors in the House... so there are plenty of Dems on board obviously.)

Courtney was rightly anti-bailout and Himes wasn't there yet.  But when you look at Delauro and Larson... you know those are Dem seats.  Why not primary them?  These issues seem to me to be huge... and not easily forgotten.

---

by: Tim White @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 20:48:11 PM CDT

You wanna come on over and give it a try? (0.00 / 0)

None of us lot especially enjoy political suggestions from the opposition party, but we're an expansion-minded lot... :)

In truth, the reason they don't get primaries is because they proactively work to keep their constituents satisfied. The reason Lieberman really got swept up the way he did was because he let people get mad, then get organized, then back a candidate... and it was probably the convention before he knew he had a problem.

You live in the 5th, right? I'd bet you five bucks that a sitdown with Murphy on 1207 is yours for the asking in a month or less if you called his office and requested it.

I don't know if he'd sign on -- though being a cosponsor and being a supporter are two different issues. It's just that very often the incentives for politicians lean towards not declaring a position either way. When a vote comes on the floor, that calculus often changes. While I think these guys can take the rap for not being leaders on that issue, do you think it's fair to cast them as opponents?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 21:40:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I know... everything you're saying makes absolute sense.  And I'm planning on attending a breakfast next week where Murph will be the guest speaker.  So I'm intending to ask him... maybe publicly, maybe privately.

I did actually speak with one of his high-level staffers about two months ago and the response to my suggestion of supporting HR 1207 was what I expected... kind of like... "well... that's from Ron Paul.  So it won't go anywhere."  Those weren't the words, but that certainly was the sense I got.  Then I followed up with an email more than a month ago and all I got was the auto-reply.  It's very frustrating when I see a bill that seems to make total sense.

And yes, I agree that saying they oppose something is strong. I'm just so frustrated.

Anyway... I was just letting off some steam really.  Thanks for putting up with me here!  (and not revoking my password... haha... I'm sure you could, if you wanted.)

---

by: Tim White @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 23:23:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hey no worries (0.00 / 0)

I don't think we ban very often -- most Republicans just sort of wander back out.

My thing is always about what the plan is -- since you seem really passionate about it, see if you can't get a hundred people to sign a home-grown petition on the subject. Get some strength in numbers, hell maybe phonebank area DTC members to get some of them on your list. I can think of a couple 5th CD DTC chairs that would sign on to something like that.

Ron Paul won't be an effective endorser for Murphy -- nor will Kucinich, as both are happy to fight losing fights for no apparent reason. But people on his committees would be good validators -- Jackie Speier from Oversight and Government Reform, maybe, and Heath Shuler from Commerce (actually most Ds on Commerce seem lined up against it mostly). That there are good progressives like Speier on board alongside some blue dogs like Shuler or Herseth makes it a lot less controversial-sounding.

Make it easy for him. Figure out what he's said on the record about disclosure, about financial regulation and government oversight of that regulation. (He was on Financial Services his first term, so he's probably said a good deal.) And instead of clubbing him with it like you're trying to do with that Dodd-Jane Hamsher exchange, remind him of the excellent principle that he already articulated, and how that applies to this bill. Figure out what his objections are, and what you really want. If 1207 isn't the vehicle, do you care? His subcommittee has jurisdiction over Inspectors General. Maybe that's a way to go with it.

And... keep in mind that the bill doesn't need his support, as it has over 50% of the House as co-sponsors. What that list of co-sponsors shows is very, very thin support among the leadership, and actually no Democratic sponsors at all in the Senate. None of the top dozen in the House Dem Caucus (of which Larson and DeLauro are two). So the odds of it coming to the floor look pretty slim, and the odds of it passing the Senate even less. So what's in it for Murphy, since it'll be a) symbolic and b) not win him any favors with the brass? How do you describe something that won't pass as attractive to a professional legislator?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:05:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strategy (0.00 / 0)

I'm sympathetic to the case you're making, but how would you suggest bringing them around? What's the plan?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 21:44:24 PM CDT