leaders of the Anti-War Movement?
Friday, September 07 2007 Rabbi Michael Lerner
This is a slightly edited version of a phone conference call convened by the NSP with the goal of establishing more contact and cooperation between various segments of the anti-war movement, and encouraging long-term strategic thinking. On the call were Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, Rick Ufford chase of the Christian Peace Wtiness for Iraq, Leslie Cagan of UFPJ, Dot Maver of Ept. of Peace, Rabbi Michael Lerner and Nichola Torbett of NSP, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey of the Progressive Caucus of the House, Congressman Jim Moran, and many other significant national leaders of the efforts to the end the war in Iraq.
http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070907191110516&mode=printWoolsey: Ok, here’s something. I believe that Nancy (Pelosi) is with us, and she’s counting on you guys and Barbara and Maxine and me to push from the Left in the Congress. But the people that need to hear are the moderate Democrats who are holding up the whole thing. They’re the ones who have to know that their people care, that they bring our troops home. They swear they don’t. They swear that they’ll lose their elections if they do the right thing.
Leslie Cagan: I think that it would be helpful to know, not necessarily at the top of your head right now Lynn, a list of who those people are, because I would venture to say that at a lot of those places a lot of people are doing work at the grassroots, whether that’s setting up meetings, or demonstrations, or letters to the editor. At least in our network of activists, through the legislative action network, are really standard all around the country. I’m not saying that every single one of those people that you’re talking about, Lynn, has been dealt with, but I’m sure a lot of them are getting some pressure from some of their constituents.
Woolsey: Well, my question is: How come Walter Jones gets it, and Democrats don’t? What’s missing in this picture? He’s got as difficult of a district as anybody. So, I’m not putting it all on you. I think what you’re doing is magnificent. And you know that MoveOn is tying the war to what these districts aren’t getting in their local budgets. And I think that’s very positive.
Cagan: But their strategy through the “Iraq Summer” has really been targeting the Republicans. Their strategy has been to peel away Republican supporters of the president. To be honest, I think a lot of their strategy is geared towards the Presidential elections and the Congressional elections next year. But nevertheless, their focus has been clearly stated: peeling away Republican support for the war. They’re not going after the Democrats.
Woolsey: Well, maybe you folks should go after the Democrats.
Carpenter: That’s our piece.
Benjamin: Well, we’re trying Lynn. We can’t even get Nancy Pelosi to meet with her own peace constituents. I would like to know: doesn’t she have the power to put a bill on the floor and not put it on? Can’t she decide that we’re not going to keep funding this war?
Well, it has to be a funding bill, and the supplemental is our next chance. It’s going to be soon.
Lerner: Pelosi could simply not bring up any funding bill for the military. She could not bring it up, and then say: “We’re only going to bring it up if you agree to end the war.”
Woolsey: That we’re only going to be spending our money to bring the troops home. And that’s what we’re going to be pushing for, I promise.
Lerner: Instead of bringing it to the floor where she knows she’ll lose the vote, she’ll refuse to bring it to the floor.
Woolsey: Well, she could do that, but it’s going to cost money to bring the troops home. The Democrats are more afraid of being labeled as abandoning, and if we fund the safe, orderly redeployment, then indeed folks will start phrasing it that way, including our own leadership, and then we can abandon the mindset that we’re not abandoning our own troops. The Republicans will say it, but Democrats have to quit saying it.
Benjamin: Lynn, if there’s no change of heart from the leadership of the Democratic Party now, is the most likely scenario that Bush will get his now 200 Billion dollars for the war with no timeline?
Woolsey: Well, it could be, yeah.Benjamin: Is that the most likely scenario now?
Woolsey: Well, we had fifty-some members sign a letter saying no more money except to bring the troops home.
Carpenter: We’re at 70 now, Lynn.
Woolsey: Ok, 70 now, thank you.
Benjamin: But if Pelosi doesn’t take that one seriously, things will play out the way it did with the last 95 billion.
Woolsey: It could. Of course, that’s my greatest fear.
Lerner: The only thing she could do is to not bring that bill to the floor. She knows that on the floor, she would lose the vote.
Woolsey: Yeah, she might not. She could put the same amount of energy into the Blue Dogs as she puts into the progressives to be key members.
Carpenter: This seems to be unlike May. This is the line in the sand vote. We in PDA should make it clear that if there are Democrats who are on the wrong side of this one, that there will be primary opposition when they seek their own renomination as the Democratic candidate for Congress. This movement has now drawn the line. If they’re not with us at this point in time, then we need to keep upping the ante from our end, to communicate to those Blue Dogs and those moderate Democrats the political consequence of this vote.
Woolsey: I think that’s a good idea, Tim. I’d hate to lose the majority, but I’m telling you, if we don’t stand up to our responsibility, maybe that’s the lesson to be learned. I don’t know.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
