Jerry McNerney’s election to Congress was an outstanding success for local grassroots activists and for the national and local netroots. He was one of the top recipients of donations from Blue America in 2006. 1,099 from our community contributed over $25,000 to his campaign (average donation $22.83). He won convincingly against a powerful and entrenched 7-term incumbent, Richard Pombo (who spent $4.6 million, not including several more millions spent by right-wing committees on his behalf), in CA-11, a Republican district that gave Kerry and Gore 45% each– but awarded McNerney 53% of the vote. And even before that, Jerry had to overcome the forces of conservative Establishment, virulently anti-grassroots Democrats (Ellen Tauscher and Rahm Emanuel) who fielded their own candidate in the primary. The netroots bubbled over with enthusiasm for Jerry.
Since then, the mood has darkened considerably. Jerry’s overall voting record is decent… but by no means heroic. Most of the other freshmen who have been endorsed by Blue America again– in fact all of them with the exception of Patrick Murphy– have more progressive voting records, including freshmen in similarly red-leaning districts, like John Hall and Carol Shea-Porter. But it wasn’t Jerry’s iffy voting record that has caused an explosion of– at the minimum– confusion from his supporters. Jerry won the seat for a lot of reasons but if you had to pick the one reason that earned him the dedicated support of the grassroots it was, hands down, his principled stand on Iraq. He wasn’t equivocating and contradicting himself in 2005-6. Pombo was the Bush rubber stamp; Jerry was the one who wanted to end the occupation of Iraq. I don’t really have any doubt that he still does. But he’s given lots of other people plenty of reasons to wonder, including many of his earliest and most devoted backers like, for example, Babaloo. And even a big pushover like myself has become exasperated. This outstanding Calitics thread started by Julia Rosen contains some of the best writing you’ll find anywhere on the controversy. Every point of view is covered.
A couple months ago, we had a… situation that came up with another freshman we backed in ‘06, Chris Carney. There were several differences, the most glaring of which is that Jerry asked to come over and speak with us, and when we took him up on it, he started proposing dates immediately and worked with us to find time while the topic is sizzling hot. Carney refused to even come out from under his desk for a phone chat and instead has been trying to use us, his former supporters, as a kind of Sister Souljah, labeling us as irrational and bragging to reactionaries that he’s standing up against our demands (our only demand, by the way, is honesty and an explanation). So Congressman McNerney joins us this evening for a frank discussion of the issues that will hopefully lead to a better understanding on all sides. Aside from reading the linked Calitics thread above, I want to suggest you do three other things to prepare for Jerry. Remember that we are all on the same team and that no one here tonight is Bush or Cheney or Pombo. Let’s all conduct ourselves with self respect and with respect for everyone else’s points of view. And let me also suggest two videos, a general one that the San Francisco Chronicle posted yesterday about Jerry’s race and one from Darcy Burner, another Democratic leader that, to my mind, sets a high standard for Democrats, one each and every one of them should take to heart. Here she is talking about Bush’s disgraceful FISA bill, one Jerry voted against (whew).
You can find both Darcy Burner and Jerry McNerney on our Blue America page. We’ll be watching how everyone who reads this post “votes.”
Related posts:
- Public Option Whip Count: Jerry Nadler Goes “Splunge!”
- Donna Edwards (and others) could learn a thing or two from Jerry Nadler
- Blue America Launches New TV Initiative in Arkansas — And We Need You
- Blue Dog-Targeted Ad Campaign Doesn’t Target Blue Dogs
- Come Saturday Morning: The Blue Dogs That Won’t Hunt Together





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

yes, well…
welcome, congressman.
Welcome everyone, and thank you so much Jerry for being here today. We’re really happy that you agreed to come here and speak to everyone today.
A note to everyone taking part in the discussion: please be respectful and keep your comments on-topic. If you want to go OT, feel free to do so in the previous thread.
Congressman McNerny, why did you endorse the persecution of medical marijuana growers–in states that have democratically legalized it–by voting against the Hinchey Amendment?
Congressman McNerney,
Thank you for being here.
You recently stated that “We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning,” he said, adding, “I don’t know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they’ve done things that are beyond me.”
Since that time, Republicans and the media have cited your remarks as proof that (i) Democrats are divided over Iraq and (ii) Democratic opposition to the war is weakening overall.
Meanwhile, your supporters have said that you were the innocent victim of media “spin”.
The bottom line is that if your verbatim statements are useful to Republican war proponents, then you aren’t speaking out against the war clearly and strongly enough.
Going forward, will you stop using rhetoric that undermines your party’s efforts to end the Iraq war?
Jerry, welcome back to FDL. As always, we’re glad you decided to stop by and talk with us. It feels like you’re family by now. Have you had a chance to read your colleague Brian Baird’s Op-Ed in the Seattle Times today and if so, what do you think?
Although I started worrying about Baird when he was one of only 4 House Democrats (the 3 others being outrageous reactionaries Chris Carney, Jim Marshall and Charlie Melancon) to vote against mandating rest time between Iraq deployments for our troops, I know my immediate reaction that this editorial was written for him by a Republican propagandist is silly. But why do Democrats use right wing frames and give credence to right wing propaganda, confusing voters into believing there are no clear differences between the two parties?
I sat down ahead of time and thought through what I wanted to say to the FireDogLake community tonight. I’ve talked with many people about this. What’s written below may read a little cleaner than other statements I may make tonight but that’s because tonight I’ll be typing on the fly. Please read what I’ve written below and then let’s start the discussion.
This is an important discussion, and I’m glad that there’s so much interest. I’m sure some of you may strongly disagree with me, but I hope that we can all respect each other and our motives. I’ve been absolutely opposed to the war from the beginning and will do everything I can to end it as soon as possible.
I hope that this live blog enlightens everyone, including me. Dissent and frank discussion are the essence of democracy. That’s not something I am afraid of and that’s why I’m here with you today to talk and share ideas.
To start this discussion, let me be clear about where I stand.
I want to end this war as soon as possible. In practical terms, that means beginning a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq now and end with a fixed date.
It’s important that we begin the withdrawal soon because it will take time to remove all of our troops and equipment from the country. Like Gary, a staffer and friend who’s in the Navy Reserves said to me: the last guy doesn’t head home until after the first guy does.
But in order to force that withdrawal we need to have a veto-proof majority so that we can overrule President Bush. That’s why sympathetic Republicans are key to beginning a withdrawal from Iraq and bringing our troops home. We don’t yet have that veto-proof majority – but we need to get there.
If the Democrats pass a resolution to bring the troops home and end the war, President Bush will veto it and it will be little more than a hollow victory. That veto will be portrayed as partisan grandstanding. Just look at the coverage of past attempts.
I truly believe that the best and soonest way to end this tragic war is to work with open-minded Republicans to find an acceptable end date. That’s what I believe, and that’s what I will fight for.
Hi Jerry:
I’ve followed your time in Congress and spent a great deal of time talking to the folks who worked very hard to get you elected. They feel not only disappointed in your shifting position on Iraq, but they also feel shut out from you. They specifically feel as if your Chief of Staff has intentionally isolated you from them. Could you please respond to this?
How do you explain your initial vote against food stamps and housing subsidies for undocumented immigrants? Since you changed your vote once it became clear the Democrats needed it, it seems kind of obvious that you only voted against immigrants because of a political calculation. Yet, on your campaign website, you promised not to create a “fugitive class” of undocumented workers. How does your action on that vote square with your vote against the McGovern Amendment, which you claim was a vote of conscience? If you couldn’t cast a symbolic vote in support of McGovern, why were you able to cast a symbolic vote to support the GOP effort to deny undocumented immigrants food and shelter?
For more background information, you can check here… http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3506
Congressman McNerney,
I have read everything I could find on your thoughts since returning from Iraq. However, I am unable to understand how you accept the big lie which motivated Bush and Cheney (and many Democrats) to attack an innocent nation to begin with. Now, suddenly, it’s the right thing to do, killing innocents, demanding they turn over 80 plus percent of their natural resources to us while demanding the American public pay 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year on offense and defense and be happy their energy prices have doubled in recent years?
I know you were not big on ending this mission which still hasn’t been honestly defined, from the get go (and I supported your campaign) but how do you suggest we dramatically change our relationship with energy while doing everything in your power to coddle the old ways?
Please, at some point in time, write down a more detailed report on your trip to Iraq. What are the Generals saying to you and other Congressmen that make one so willing to kill people for oil and empire?
Please hear me when I say I don’t want to murder another innocent human being for my gasoline.
Thank you for your time
Rep McNerney’
Welcome. Thanks for joining us.
I’ve closely followed the question of post-war Iraq. From the beginning, it has been clear that there was a plan to occupy the country with about 50,000 troops for the indefinite future. This idea was first broached by Vice President Cheney in 2003, when he said he expected troop levels to be drawn to 50,000 in a few months. After that, the Chicago Herald-Tribune ran a story about the “enduring bases” the military was constructing. Those bases have been built. George Packer, among others, visited them and wrote a piece for the New Yorker that said these bases were intended to permanently house about 50,000 troops. The administration recently compared their occupation plans with those of Korea, Germany and Japan, which are, essentially permanent.
In addition, Iraq has no effective national defense force. No air, no armor, no functional chain of command. The US has not permitted the reconstitution of an Iraqi national defense force.
Various recent statements from members of the foreign policy community, and today’s release of the CIA NIE also indicate plans for an extended occupation.
It seems beyond doubt that the plan is for an extended, even permanent occupation.
Moreover, there have been no clear statements from Democratic leaders that they are opposed to this planned occupation. It is what I have coined, a Washington Consensus.
Can you now state unequivocally that you support the reduction of forces in Iraq to the same levels as countries like Egypt or Morocco, and you support reductions to those levels within 2 years time?
Welcome, Rep. McNerney. Looking forward to the discussion this evening. Thanks so much for being here to talk with us today.
paradox @ 4
Since we’re here to specifically discuss Congressman McNerney’s position with regard to Iraq and we only have an hour I’m going to ask that people stay on that particular topic.
Welcome, Congressman, and thank you for coming by to chat. Regardless of your thinking on the occupation and the effectiveness of continuing the surge, it’s this quote I find most troubling:
As an engineer, you may be more open about your thinking as new data presents itself; thus your impolitic thinking-out-loud about the “evidence” you saw on your trip to occupied territory. But there’s absolutely no excuse for undermining party leadership on this issue. I want to know exactly what things they’ve done that are beyond you.
Thank you for your service to California and to the United States of America.
Sorry to be off-topic, thank you for coming, Mr. McNerny.
EDITED BY SITE OWNER
Please stay on topic.
Here are reasons that the surge has failed.
1. Failure to meet the two goals of the surge: 1) Security in Baghdad and 2) A political settlement
2. The move away from benchmarks because little or no progress has been made on them
3. Failure to recognize Iraq is in civil war and create a strategy which addresses it
4. Continued conflation of al Qaeda with the Sunni insurgency
5. Exaggeration of Iran’s role in Shia militias and minimization of Saudi Arabia’s role in the much more deadly Sunni insurgency
6. Failure to resolve tensions between the Kurds and Turkey in the North
7. Corruption, disorganization, sectarian nature, and ineffectualness of the Iraqi government
8. High levels of violence and deaths of Iraqis which have not declined
9. Iraqi security forces remain largely fronts for militias and death squads
10. The Iraqi army has almost no reliable troops and remains strongly dependent on our forces
11. Deterioration of basic services, such as water, electricity, and healthcare
12. Large scale malnutrition among Iraqis children (~28%)
13. Continued high levels of unemployment (25%-40%)
14. Declining oil production, Iraq’s principal source of income
15. High numbers of refugees: 2 million in neighboring countries, 2 million internally displaced
16. Tenuousness and temporary nature of Sunni truce in Anbar
17. Increased Shia on Shia violence in the South
18. Exhaustion of American troops and equipment
19. Inability to sustain the number of troops needed for the surge
20. Post-withdrawal violence will occur if we leave now or later
How can you justify keeping troops in Iraq?
Howie thanks for the link. It was not easy to write or argue with my good friends in that thread, but it was important to hash out.
Jerry, thank you for continuing the dialogue. I feel confident in saying that we have a heck of a lot more in common than we don’t. That said, there seems to be a big difference in what you believe is the swiftest path to ending the War and the blogosphere/Dem leadership/AAEI.
My question is why did you choose to speak to that particular reporter at the WaPo about our differences on a day when you were working to repair your relationship with the netroots?
Howie, I haven’t read Brian’s comments. Brian is an honest and thoughtful man. We all want to find a resolution to this war and have to listen to all points of view.
I only have about an hour and I want to get to as many questions as possible.
Congressman McNerney, we certainly appreciate your time here to explain your positions you’ve recently staked out!
We wouldn’t need a veto proof majority (which won’t happen) if a *majority* hadn’t agreed to fund the occupation.
Jerry McNerney @ 7
I think we are generally in agreement about the importance of bringing Republicans over to our side of the aisle on Iraq. But I don’t think your proposed solution will work.
If you want the Republicans to help end the war, you have to make them suffer politically for supporting it. The only way to do so is to stand up and criticize them, not muddy your differences with talk of moving forward together and bipartisanship, which simply serves to provide them with cover on the war.
Thank you Congressman for being a stand-up guy and responding to our concerns.
But in order to force that withdrawal we need to have a veto-proof majority so that we can overrule President Bush.
In fact, this is not true. All the Congress has to do is refuse to pass a bill that funds future miltiary activity. Even John Yoo, in his book about presidential war powers, grants Congress the power of the purse. The claim that a bill must be passed that the president will sign to fund the war is inaccurate.
It is certainly possible (and it looks like well over 60 percent of the American people, and 51% of Iowa republicans) would applaud this approach. Why has the leadership not adopted it?
Congressman McNerney, this was Hanoi’s response to Bush’s comparison of Iraq to Vietnam: “The root of the problem is not the withdrawal, it’s the very fact of starting up the war in the first place.”
It was the lessons of Vietnam that led to the Powell Doctrine
The OCCUPATION of Iraq has never met the conditions of the Powell Doctrine. We invest a lot of tax dollars in training our troops to fight with artillery and close-air support. Bush has put them in a situation where they are stripped of that support and become “bullet sponges.“ Keep it simple Congressman, don’t put our soldiers where they cannot succeed.
Please do not forget in addition to the more than 3,700 U.S. lives, the OCCUPATION of Iraq costs taxpayers in excess of $280,000,000/day.
Congress’ daily failure to get our troops out of harms way, only makes Iran and Russia more dominant in the region. That is not an appropriate use of our tax dollars.
TeddySanFran @ 14
Teddy, the Democratic leadership is doing a good job, but I strongly disagree on two issues. First is the second supplemental. I voted against the rule and the bill. This should never have been sent to the President since he vetoed the bill.
Second was FISA. We should have stayed there to fight this one out over the recess.
Congressman McNerney, thank you so much for coming. Others would not have chosen to come and interact in such a context, but I for one am glad you have done so.
Years ago, I was an intern in DC — long before Monica made that a dirty word. But it has given me some background on the behind-the-scenes political situation with which you are dealing.
My question is simple, though your answer may not be: how has life as a freshman member of Congress sat with you, as you deal with the horse trading: “I’ll vote for this, if you back off on that”?
Congressman McNerney.
I’ve studied math, physics, law, logic, languages, and other subjects.
I know that profound ideas can be expressed simply.
In simple terms, what is your prescription for Iraq?
Jerry, will you support Sen. Warner’s call to start withdrawing by X-mas?
“The Surge” was said to have been put in place to secure Baghdad. Now we see democratic congressmen and senators, you among them, conceding that the escalation has shown some success because Sunni Iraqis in Anbar province have turned against foreign arabs associated with al qaeda in mesopotamia.
This has nothing to do with the increased troop levels. This same result could have been achieved with no surge. Why are you and others allowing the administration to conflate this positive development with the escalation?
Rep McNerney:
I’m not in your district but sent some bucks and spent a few days knocking on doors. Tracy is right next to where I grew up and I want my home area to have good representation in Congress. Thank you very much for coming the FDL tonight. My thoughts:
I think Chris Dodd has said it best. I think he said it so well that his statement should be used as a model for anything a Democrat says about Iraq:
“Despite the exemplary performance of our troops, we are coming off the bloodiest summer of this misguided war and it should be clear that there can be no military solution in Iraq.
“It is useless to argue the merits of a specific tactic when the strategy itself is failed.
“…debating over military tactics when there is no military solution only undermines … those of us who believe that we must … begin to immediately redeploy US combat forces so that Iraqi leaders will have the impetus to find a political accord.”
Note: Dodd forgot to add that comprehensive multilateral regional negotiations including Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and major powers must begin immediately, to reduce the many very great risks the Iraq messes poses to future US security.
****
My understanding is that you had something like Dodd’s position when you ran for office. If you think you’ve learned something recently that changed your mind, then I want to hear a detailed explanation from you, which includes your current detailed thinking about long run US policy in the Middle East and Iraq, not just the timing of troop withdrawals.
Also, if your statements were trying to signal to the Cheney-Bush Iraq war nuts that you are willing to negotiate with them in good faith, then I think you are playing a dangerous game. Those people do not understand good faith in anything that they do. They will use you and do what they were planning to do anyway, and then they will use anything you said or did to try to work with them against you unscrupulously to defeat you in the next election.
Cheney and Bush know very well they can improve the chances of a good outcome in Iraq and politically in the US any time by simply calling up the Congressional leaders and start a meaningful discussion of long run goals, strategy and all the diplomatic, political and economic tools the US has at its disposal. They do not want to, and they won’t. It’s their fault not anyone else’s. No reason to reach out to them any more than Reid and Pelosi have done in last few months.
Finally: I think it is very premature to start talking about withholding support. There are a lot of big votes and issues to tackle over next six months and important to try to get things done before making threats based on first six months.
Jerry McNerney @ 26
It is really good to hear you say that. (OT I know but nonetheless).
Congressman McNerney, I’m so glad you are here. Please tell us, what is going on.
They are about to “remove” Maliki. Then what? What kind of stabilization is that?
What if our troops get caught in a Tet like offensive then what?
Also, why did the FISA law pass???? What is that all about?
Just tell us the straight up truth, please.
Thank you.
Hugh, Number 16 asked how I could justify keeping troops in Iraq. I can’t. We need to develop a veto-proof majority to bring them home. We could pass another resolution and send it to the President and he would veto it. Then we’d be right back where we were months ago.
Rep. McNerny, thank you for being here.
*xyz said:
I have to agree. I do not believe that any attempt to make nice with the Republicans will be successful. They have demonstrated that they are willing to dishonor every agreement and subvert our political process for party and personal gain again and again.
People who tell you that by responding to the netroots you embracing fringe politics are wrong. We represent the vast majority of the public who want to see this war ended and ended fast.
Otherwise, please explain to us why Congress has even lower ratings than the most unpopular president since Nixon. By compromising with Republicans and taking half measures against the war, you are thwarting the will of the people and of the people who put you in office.
Jerry:
You say:
So if the MSM portrayal is what governs your votes, you have already failed, cause they own the MSM. And then, working with “open-minded Republicans”, ah, wonder where you’re going to find that beast. Seems to be an oxymoron. Why not just vote with your heart and your constituency and let these open-minded MSM beasts portray you any which way they want? Or is fear the ruling emotion here?
Jane Hamsher @ 30
Ahem.
Let’s stay on topic here. If you want to go off topic, go back to the last thread.
Or at least that’s what I’ve heard.
Rep. McNerney at 25 — Agree with you completely on both points there. And I’ve said the same sort of things to folks on the Hill as well. The FISA fight, especially, needed to be had — and it was a great disappointment that it wasn’t.
Lane Hudson @ 7
FDL Folks, feel free to tell me if this is inappropriate, but I know it’s a big question that ties many things together. A direct answer on this may go a long way in helping to resolve this situation.
Welcome Congressman McNerney. Thank you for offering to communicate with us. I have many questions but I will focus on one aspect of the US occupation of Iraq.
A study by Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University researchers finds that between 420,000 and 790,000 Iraqis have died as a result of war and political violence since the beginning of the US invasion in March 2003.
Certainly, there are other channels in supporting Iraq and the Iraqi people other than leaving the troops there. Please help me to understand how the Bush Cheney war policy can be better than alternatives other than violence.
Jonathan @ 27
Jonathan, I like the way you phrased this. We need to pull out in a deliberate way making sure that we get our troops out safely. We need to work with the neighboring countries to minimize the violence, and we need to very careful about arming Iraqis.
The way we do this is to develop a veto-proof majority before Bush leaves office.
Lane Hudson @ 36
Excellent point…
Lane Hudson @ 39
Lane, it is certainly a question that comes up again and again from Jerry’s most dedicated backers from CA-11.
Jerry McNerney @ 32
This is like a carrot before a horse (us). Malarky!
Vote correctly and often to end this madness! Be sure and give republicans an opportunity to do the right thing every week if need be!
Jerry,
What would the strategy be to build the repub. portion of that veto-proof majority?
Why are we in Iraq today?
Good evening, Congressman.
Sir, let’s assume a veto-proof majority. What should a withdrawal plan look like?
Thank you for being here with us, and Howie and Jane for all they do.
Congressman,
My position is that we know it will take time to get troops home safely. In the interim why is it so difficult to face facts? The military is deteriorating and Republicans including Senator Warner, who spoke eloquently yesterday, have decided to let the president pick the date for withdrawal and to continue doing whatever he wants. Warner said his conscience is clear now because he has suggested getting 5,000 out by Christmas! This is not acceptable. The entire invasion and occupation were illegal and based on lies. Why should you support continuing an invasion based on lies, where our brave men and women are dying? I am asking you to state what you believe the timetable for withdrawal should be.
Jerry McNerney @ 32
Yes – and because of the veto power, the congress MUST keep sending the bill back and again – not capitulate!!! WE’RE IN THE SAME PLACE WHERE WE HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS – why not fight while we are here? We ask our soldiers to do it – why can’t we?
If you’re honest and knowledgeable, your answers come right away.
Congressman, you are a freshman. Why do you think you should take the lead in working with republicans, as opposed to working with the leadership? Why do you think you have so much influence that you can do a better job than the leadership?
Congressman McNerney,
You’ve made your argument about “working with Republicans” to end the Iraq War as the “only” means to avoid a White House veto.
That really doesn’t cut it! Democrats have the Majority in both houses.
I’ve not heard any “reasoned” explanation for the failure of the Democratic majority to cut off funding for this war.
Not cutoff funding for our soldiers’ pay, but cutoff the ability for this Administration to ship our troops over there.
Any average financial-type or accountant could easily construct legally-binding verbiage to prohibit the Administration from continuing this war, while at the same time ensuring that our troops are not left without means to ensure both their physical and financial safety.
We, the voters, insist that you not bend to this corrupt and malevolent Administration!
You folks have got to stand up and be counted!
I figure there are three issues that have people riled up over Iraq:
1) had Rep McNerney’s basic views changed regarding Iraq and withdrawal of US troops.
2) assuming we all think starting withdrawal quick is best policy, what are tactics that should be used to actually achieve that goal
3) problem of how to make statements that will be reported in (often biased) press that will not damage anti-Iraq war unity and political efforts.
Dear Rep. McNerney,
Do you think that it is disingenuous for politicians to blame Maliki and other Iraqi leaders for lack of progress in their country? After all, we broke it and now we say, “OK, you fix it”. Seems like a cop out.
Congressman, thanks for answering my question; I feel much better now.
Which GOP California Congressmen do you think might move toward a date-certain withdrawal resolution if you negotiated the date with them? Are there non-Californian GOPs you have in mind?
I think if the goal is to move GOPs to our turf, we need to know who’s likely to move.
Also, with regards to the security situation in Iraq, the NIE scuttlebutt is that there basically is no Iraqi government. Reading in between the lines of the paper-thin “positive” talking points, it appears that yes, there is a group of people who meet and call themselves the Iraqi government (when they aren’t on vacation), but that basically the area that used to be known as Iraq has dissolved into a loose aggregation of violent caliphates, each one with its own warlords and militia.
What exactly do you think our troops are going to be able to impose on the Iraqis now with regards to security? And what do you think that remaining in Iraq at this point is going to achieve that won’t be undone within months of our leaving?
Congressman McNerney: the following seems to be the central point in your position/argument:
With that, I respectfully disagree, on two points:
a) it’s wrong to jump to the “the only way we’re going to get there is a veto-proof majority” conclusion. You don’t say “we could never climb Mt. Everest; we’re not in shape.” What you do is GET in shape. You make the votes, even if they lose, that show that Dems are standing strong and together; that Dems aren’t afraid of being called “soft on terror” but rather that they recognize this BS for what it is and articulate their position in support of the troops; and
b) the way to get “veto-proof majorities” is NOT to go tea-dancing with the Republicans!! As I hope you have seen by now, Republicans do NOT care about the troops, do NOT care about ending the war, do NOT care about anything other than retaining power.
I’m really disappointed that the Democratic congressional leadership didn’t warn freshman Dems about the Republican wolves, but I’m also disappointed that you guys weren’t smart enough to see through these Evil Ones.
And with regard to your comments that “Bush will just veto it” — LET HIM. Let the bricks fall on HIS head. As it is, the Dems look scared & weak.
Representative McNerney,
While we may need to get Republican votes to override a veto the way to get there is not to weaken Democrats message, but by showing a strong front that boxes the Republicans. The message we need to get out there and for our friends to carry is that Bush is still lying and that 2007 was the bloodiest summer ever. The problem is the Republicans and Bush, not leaders having you vote on a second resolution. With all do respect – thanks for coming
CTuttle @ 28
I’d like to see a withdrawl BEGIN much sooner than Christmas.
Did we scare him off already…???
Yeah, I gotta say
“veto proof majority” isn’t an excuse.
You let Bush veto his own war until the Pentagon is forced to bring the troops home because there is no political will to continue the war. Technically they’re run out of money.
You don’t ever give up on our people in the field. Bush is a felon, never accept what he does.
Does the screaming of the dead and wounded ever get heard in DC? I am sure it does not.
I don’t think you know what you’re rationalizing, Mr. McNerney, our people are dying for lies. You don’t go on recess until it’s fixed. Ever.
Jerry McNerney @ 55
Now we’re talking… 8-)
KathieinMN @ 48
Yes!
Thanks everyone for keeping things respectful.
Elliott: if you want to get something actually done before Bush leaves, then veto proof majority seems important to me. Bush will veto anything except for a blank check.
Suppose Giuliani wins (yuck) then we will need veto proof majorities for next four years following 2009 to stave off more disasters.
Is there an option to cut off funding for the contractors? Over 1000 dead contractors, and an incalculable portion of the capability.
Rep. McNerney,
You will never have a veto-proof majority, so that means you need to come up with ways of shutting the war down even without one. You can do it, too; just observe how effective the Republicans have been at getting their way with a bare majority in the past. The Republicans absolutely ruled the House with a tiny majority, because they enforced unity.
Saying you can’t stop the war without a veto-proof majority is to say you can’t stop the war. At the rate Congress is going, the Democrats may lose seats, because independents are getting disgusted. They want you to stop the war. I know it’s hard. That’s why you get the big bucks.
You need to find ways of setting up the situation so that inaction results in a Democratic victory. The Republicans can filibuster. Bush can veto. But they need funding.
The Dems passed a bill with a timetable in it. It was quite moderate. But after Bush vetoed it, the Democrats caved. You should have done what John Edwards suggested: keep passing the same thing again and again. If Bush wanted to play chicken, you could pass emergency bills extending the funding for a week at a time.
Your new chance comes with the new fiscal year. The worst thing you can do is to undercut your own side. Avoid going on hostile media (the Washington Post is now a neocon paper, treat them as hostile) and giving them quotes that hurt party unity. By all means debate your ideas, but fight it out within the Democratic caucus, then work as a team.
Bill Woodruff @ 45
Bill, I truly appreciate your long term support and your constructive criticisms.
We need to reach out to reasonable R’s to reach that veto-proof majority. Any anti-war Republicans are ready to come forward. I can still talk to some freshmen R’s, and will do that.
Jane Hamsher @ 61
Ma’am, would we disrespect your home…??? ;-)
Elliott @ 60
No, it IS an excuse. Taking the position of “Oh well, I really WISH we could start withdrawing those troops” is not terribly compelling. Quite a contrast to the hardball tactics the republicans are playing, like refusing to let a minimum wage bill passed by both houses to Conference.
And this is on topic. Congressman, we really do need a better reason than that. And a reason why your leadership is not forcing the republicans to cast unpopular vote after unpopular vote.
What are you doing to ensure your Vets are getting quality care in your district? I have heard complaints from my friends in the Vet community- they say your offices are not responding and helping them navigate the VA process. This is a disgrace…..
paradox @ 62
I would like to think I am wrong but everything I’ve seen of this president says that if a funding bill is not passed to his satisfaction, he is perfectly willing to leave the troops on the ground with no money or supplies and try to blame it all on the Democrats.
Jerry McNerney @ 59
And I’d like a pony. The question is what are you doing to make that happen?
Congressman,
Thank you for taking the time to communicate with us.
1. It has been proposed by a former Democratic U.S. Senator that Congress vote once a day (until passage/veto override) on legislation providing briefly:
By a date certain (120 days has been suggested) a. all US troops must be out of Iraq.
b. no more U.S. funds may be spent for military operations in Iraq
c. On monthly basis, the President, Vice-President, Defense Secretary, and Treasury Secretary must certify that the U.S. is in compliance with a. and b.
d. Any violation of a. or b. or perjury with respect to c. will subject any violator (other than anyone in the U.S. military below the rank of general), to 5 years in prison and a $1 million fine. Will you propose/support this legislation? If so, when? If not, why not?
Please note that George W. Bush has frequently in his public remarks supported Congress’ right to control spending in Iraq (item b.) thus lending bi-partisan support to at least part of the legislation.
Hear, hear!!
TeddySanFran @ 54
Teddy, I love your question, but I fear that an answer at this time might drive said GOP folks further away.
Still, I’d love to hear that yes, there are wavering GOP reps who are willing to listen to a (mere) freshman Dem.
Jerry, you said:
Does that mean the coverage is more important than reality? And since it appears there are no “open-minded Republicans” we know of in Congress, there is no way this issue can be addressed?
No doubt how FDL readers feel. I think this reflects the view of most Americans at this point.
Why can’t you adopt a strategy which reflects the people’s disgust with the current status quo? Why appear to fold into republican “gaming” the system to thwart the will of the people. We are held hostage to the madness of the minority.
Jerry McNerney @ 26
Congressman McNerney, would I be correct to infer from this that you’re saying the reporter quoted you out of context (or created a false context) — because the context in the report suggests you oppose the Dem leadership on Iraq and the examples you gave here are not about Iraq.
This still leaves open the question, do you oppose the Dem leadership on Iraq?
i’m just listening and hoping for some concrete proposals to get us out of iraq now…. oh yeah thanks for taking time to talk with us….
From what I read the FDL community is saying very few Republicans intend to shut down the war. That puts the ball back in the Dems court. What we want to know, need to know, is how you, Congressman McNerney are going to play the ball. So far your answers are unsatisfactory to me.
Congressman – excuse the terseness. Limitations of the medium.
Over the last 6 years, every single statement by any Democrat that could be interpreted as “supportive of the President’s policies” has been leapt on by the President and his enablers to prolong his failed policies in Iraq. You know that, and presumably knew that coming in to office, yet you continue to issue statements that ARE used exactly that way. Why?
You stated specifically that you want to “work with the Republicans to find a way out”. Where have you found evidence that the President “can be worked with”? FDL has been watching the President for a while now and no such episode of the President working with Democrats has been found.
As for the Republicans in Congress, who are presumably the ones you think you can work with – why should they work with you if continue to allow them to use you (for free!) the way they’ve used every other crossover Democrat?
And finally, the third way argument that creeps into your statements strikes a very discordant note. Isn’t it a little presumptuous to think that a freshman Congressman is going to find a ‘third way’ by working with a bitterly partisan opposition when many people with decades of service in the House and Senate have not?
As Joe Buck says in 67, but moreso. You and your colleagues are running the risk of seeing primary opponents running purely on a platform of withdrawal. You’re not even back in session, and lists are being drawn up of MoCs who are not reflecting their constituencies wishes on this matter. Unless you can pull your caucus together and take some real, concrete action, you run the risk of fragmenting the party over an issue that is entirely due to the Republicans creating the worst foreign policy debacle since 1812.
By temporizing and handwringing, you are taking a position that will have the people blaming the “Congress” and “politicians” for the war, and not Bush and the Republlcans. You were given a mandate to end this occupation. Saying the republicans play too rough is no way to respond to that mandate.
Look at the polls. From a political perspective you are committing suicide.
Congressman McNerney,
I’ve lived in your district for 25 years and we all celebrated your election. I’ve been watching your votes and reading your statements and have to say I don’t trust you. I feel like you’re playing games with us. I am still hoping you will do the things we elected you to do but right now it looks to me like you’re following a very different agenda. I don’t know if it’s naivete on your part or what but I would like to understand why you are making the decisions you are making. Your explanations so far don’t cut it.
Welcome Congressman McNerney,
How do you propose to convince enough Republicans to join for a veto-proof majority?
Many people here argue the best way to change Republicans is to pressure them with public roll-call votes on pulling out of Iraq, forcing 12-month minimum time between deployment, forcing Republicans to vote on Iraq budgets. This appears to be Senator Kerry’s plan as well.
The idea is that Republican’s constituents will push them to join the 2/3 votes we need, and in the case of Republicans in close elections, to weigh loyalty to Bush vs their own reelection.
Others don’t want to oppose Bush unless the Republicans spontaneously choose to end Iraq. You appear to be in this camp, since you don’t want to discuss any bill unless there are 2/3 votes majority.
Why do you believe any Republicans will abandon their party without political pressure?
Joe Buck @ 68
Thank you Joe!! You said articulately exactly what I’ve been trying to express.
Congressman McNerney, get off this “veto-proof majority” chimera. It’s deadly poison that’s been fed to you by the Repubs and others who want to continue the war.
One of the primary results of chasing this ghost is that the Dems look weaker and weaker for doing so, and that makes it even LESS likely that ANYONE will want to “join” with them.
Is Sen. Russ Feingold any less respected because he voted against the war from Day One and continues to oppose it? No.
And Joe, thanks for repeating Senator Edwards’ point about how to deal with Bush.
Why not refuse to fund the military and force them to use their funds to protect and withdraw our soldiers and not prosecute and expand the war? Doesn’t the DOD have resources already appropriated to withdraw our troops? Or is this another appropriation? If so why and how was this allowed to happen?
Jane’s Assistant @ 58
Yes, I share your understanding that this was is a tragic disaster. We can attack the Bush message and strengthen our own. We need to end this war and the way to do it is with a date certain. That’s the only way to make sure we end the war. I do feel that we need to talk to open-minded Republicans in order to find a consensus and build a veto-proof majority.
Congressman, I think you and other members of Congress during this recess are hearing much the same thing from all over the country.
It’s my hope that you and they will return with a new sense of purpose, strengthened by the fact that you have learned that the American people want to neuter the Bush Administration and keep them from doing any more harm.
Jerry McNerney @ 7
One real problem you have is that even reasonable Republicans will be hard-pressed to not side with Bush in today’s atmosphere. They are *dead* if they don’t support the President. (See Chuck Hagel to understand what they are up against.)
When you do not have a very hard line of where you will not compromise when working with your Republican counterparts, you will find yourself being painted as “supporting the war” and “dissing the Democratic fanatics” because that is the only way you will get Republicans to stand with you in this environment.
You really need to understand how the Right Wing is using this issue:
- to keep their folks inline (very, very few Republicans have the guts to go against the machine – check Specter’s record if you want to see how it works)
- to divide Democrats into the “reasonable” vs the “fanatics”
- to paint Democrats as traitors if you are against the war.
Right now you’ve been painted into the “reasonable” group, but *only* because you are muddying the Democratic message.
IMO, you need to be talking a lot with people like Russ Feingold who understand how this works to make sure what you are saying is not sabotaging the message that we have to get out of Iraq. Be willing to listen to options on how to do it, but don’t let the message be that we can’t work on it now.
A veto is something the President does. Standing and being counted in opposition to his veto is something a congressperson does. I don’t know how such a flawed assumption as not taking a stand because the president might veto something came to be accepted by congressfolks. Please explain this to me. Why is this better?
I also asked a question @ 38. Haven’t received a response yet.
Another thing: if you really want a veto-proof majority, you’ll need something like 70 Democrats in the senate, because we have about ten Democrats that can be intimidated into voting for almost anything if Bush says he needs it to stop the terrorists.
Please, please, don’t try to make deals with Republicans (except maybe on matters where you have special expertise, like alternative energy sources). You’re a freshman, with almost no political experience. It will go badly for you. They will use you. They already have, which is why so many of your supporters are angry with you (and yes, I gave money to your campaign and was delighted to see you win).
Uhhh, Jerry, a little feedback would be much appreciated, we don’t bite! (gnaw, maybe!)
Mr McNerney: How secure is America’s voting system?
I’d like to know who on the Republican side of the aisle you think you can work with who won’t in the end double cross you or be forced back into line by the Republican leadership.
Let me add as one who has fought the right tooth and nail for the past five years, offers of compromise are viewed as weakness on the other side and pocketed as concessions.
Jerry McNerney @ 7
Congressman,
You willingness to discuss these issues here tonight is refreshing, and appreciated. Three questions:
1. You seem fixed on that veto-proof majority as the only way to bring our troops home. I am wondering if thinking “outside the box” might generate other ultimately more viable alternatives. Might you be willing to consider some?
2. In any case, who have you convinced so far?
3. Might it not also be more fruitful to canvass/try to work with recalcitrant Democrats?
Thanks for the question, Joe…it anyone knows that Republicans can’t be trusted it’s you.
i arrived late to the thread……..what were you told when you were in iraq? seriously, what was said to you, and what were the surroundings like when you were told……..
Lane Hudson @ 38
Jerry:
This is the third time this question is being posed. Will you skip it a third time? There are other people here tonight who would really appreciate an answer.
Best-
Lane
I would like to read an answer from the congressman to Amb. Wilson’s question!
Representative McNerney:
I believe it was comments like this that brought us to this point, and I think (to Julia Rosen’s question above) people would like to see you address this:
Do you really believe that the Democrats are being “unreasonable,” and what were you hoping to achieve by saying you don’t know what the leadership is thinking? And are you aware of how the Republicans are using your comments to hammer and disempower the Democrats as they seek to perpetuate the war?
This is what concerns us.
From tomorrow’s Washington Post:
Congressman, where do you see things among your colleagues when everyone returns after Labor Day? Given that President Bush cited creating a space for reconciliation among the various factions as a prime reason for the surge, do you think you will be able to shift some of your GOP freshman colleagues, after reports like this?
I am interested in how the Dems perform, not how they are waiting for the Republicans to perform. We know how they’ve performed for six years. And specifically, how will this Congressman perform? So far, I’ve not heard any initiatives from the Congressman.
Thomas @ 72
This is off topic, but this is very important to me. I joined the Veterans Affairs committee because I wanted to do everything I could to make sure the vets have what they need. I have visited the VA facilities in my district, formed a veterans advisory board (we met Tuesday and have a strong agenda), and have met with Secretary Nicholson in his office to argue to keep the Livermore office open. My staff knows this important to me and respond to verterans issues. My staff member is a vet himself. If there are any complaints, i need to hear about them personally and specifically.
I think in a few months Bush will be able to veto a funding bill and find shifty ways to keep funding. He doesn’t mind breaking the law. So I have sympathy finding a veto proof majority, but are there really Republicans who will have guts to cast a vote against Bush?
SanderO @ 88
Any chance of addressing this, Rep. McNerney?
Keep sending our death-loving President a bill until the money runs out. Do you think he’ll just leave them in the desert as the gas runs out of the Humvees? What is the worry with this strategy?
Tom #71, please respond- this seems to be a real problem, and as you know…constituents deserve representation. If you can’t take care of your returning Vet’s- why should we trust you at all?
Hi, Rep. McNerney,
Thanks for this time spent answering some of our questions, and listening. I appreciate it.
You say that it’s necessary to have a veto-proof majority. I agree!
You would do a world of good, in my opinion, to come at it from a position of strength. By this I mean:
Show solidarity–with fellow Democrats, that is. Vote en masse with them.
Lead the way out of Iraq. Don’t follow when the Republicans have given the OK.
Just do what’s right, and don’t worry about the Republicans. They’re getting pressured to get out too, don’t forget.
Christy Hardin Smith at 6:16 pm
The FISA fight, especially, needed to be had — and it was a great disappointment that it wasn’t.
Congressman, I know that Iraq is tonight’s topic, but if possible, it would be good for you or your staff to go back and read the threads of that night, and see the raw emotions of those here as that evening went along.
I appreciate the integrity you show tonight by being here.
I’d like to know who you think you can sit down with on the Republican side. And why you think you can trust them to be true to their word.
Congressman McNerney, thank you for being here. When I gave you my support, it was with the understanding that every vote and every word out of your mouth would be in opposition to this illegal war of aggression brought on us through lies and deceit. I too am a fan of de-funding this war/occupation.
woodruff13 @ 67
Yeah, cut off funding to the war profiteers. Nothing so unpopular as an unprofitable war.
Congressman,
Since Cheney is pushing for a war with Iran because they are helping the Shia in Iraq, why then is Saudi Arabia immune when they are supplying the Sunnis? And, since we are supplying Saudi Arabia, perhaps we should bomb ourselves! I agree that we should simply cut off the funding and force the end of this occupation – because it is not a war. If you wait for Republican support, we will be there forever.
The way the republicans enforce and discipline their “congress persons” it is highly unlikely to get enough to break away to form a veto proof majority.
How about a different approach? Think outside the box please.
Brian Lawson @ 80
I told the reporter the same thing I told you the day before. The comment about leadership was not just in an Iraq context as implied in the article.
There are a lot of questions, and rightly so. Can we take a few moments and appreciate that Richard Pombo no longer represents the Tracy area? This is huge progress.
I think what’s clear now is that you’re using this forum as a campaigning tool, not answering our questions.
Joe Wilson @ 96
That is very true.
i want to know if the dems will at least make a withdrawal proposal and stand by it and not fall down b/c bushco will veto it…lets have a united front in congress for once
From that indirect quotation He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need.
Time to do what? What can the generals possibly do that will have any material effect on the situation? We’ve been hearing “six more months and then we’ll see” for years now, and the situation has only deteriorated. This kind of rhetoric, this kind of temporizing and hoping, Mr Micawber style, that something will turn up is precisely what the president’s policy has been this entire time. Why would you and other democrats adopt a policy position that has proven to be not merely unsuccessful, not merely counterproductive but cowardly and disastrous.
What will it take to persuade our public servants to do the job they’ve been elected to do? The electorate, as you must know if you have met with citizens during the break, are very much unified on this question.
Alternatively, can you explain why you are adopting this attitude?
Why would you worry about how republicans vote? It’s their tails on the line.
Jerry McNerney @ 101
Nicholson’s VA budget does not have any increase in ‘08 or beyond, it’s actually flatlined and targeted for significant cuts in ‘09, something is awry and it ain’t getting better…!!!
Jerry McNerney @ 69
This is not a strategy — this is chatting. A strategy is what people have suggested here. Put up votes to end the war — make the Reps either vote for or against their constituents or for or against the President. Would you be willing to chat with them by telling them to vote with the dreaded Dems rather than the Pres?
The WAPO article at #103, Three Secular Iraqis in Cabinet to formally resign, there is this sentence:
Although the announcement was widely expected, the National List’s official decision further damages any chance of reconciliation among Iraq’s rival political factions in the near future.
snip
Was this widely expected???
Politicians are politicians.
Not messengers of truth.
They deserve our respect because they earn it.
Not because they’re entitled to it.
Congressman,
concerning Jane’s observation at 102 quoting from Julia Rosen’s:
“He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need.”
1. Do you support the constitutionally mandated civilian control of the military in effect since the 1700’s?
2. If not, why not?
Thomas at 108 — If you look up the thread a few comments from yours, you’ll see that Rep. McNerney did respond. Everyone needs to understand that guests need time to read the questions and comments and then to type responses — it’s a good thing to be a bit patient in waiting for a response. Thanks much!
Jane @ 102. Thanks for bringing that back up. I would really like to hear the Congressman address how his comments to the media, particularly one looking to write that exact story, weaken Democrats because Republicans use it against us.
Rep McNerney,
Watching the GOP members of Congress react to the unfolding mess at the Department of Justice has been amazing, especially on the Senate side. The GOP members voice their concern about lack of truthfulness, lack of cooperation, and lack of confidence in the adminstration — but when the time come to vote, they back the Bush Administration down the line, 100%.
How, pray tell, do you see things going differently in the House over Iraq? They can mouth their support for a different approach, but with the White House and its allies spending millions in advertising to keep them in line, how do you see that it is possible to get them to cast actual, accountable, verifiable votes against the Bush administration policy?
Joe Wilson @ 92
What he said.
Who on their side do you honestly trust enough to think that they won’t sell you down the river when Rush Limbaugh holds their feet to the fire? We’ve listened to people like you and Obey telling us we’re naïve and we don’t know what it’s like, and yet you guys have accomplished precisely nothing toward ending the war since January. Not a doggone thing. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
A lot of people are fed up enough that they’re losing faith in the process. The netroots helped to bring about the Democratic majority. We didn’t do that so you guys chase your tails in circles while more and more people die in Iraq.
Tithonia @ 112
This is very true and I don’t really regret donating to his campaign. Nancy Pelosi is my representative and I don’t have a lot of use for her but I’m very glad we have Speaker Pelosi. However Blue America is asking us to donate to his reelection campaign. At this point, with all due respect, I can find better places to put my money.
I’m not a very good typist, and can only answer so many questions. I hope you are all willing to let me stay till 7:30.
Jane Hamsher @ 117
And we don’t even have to get to the Republican side of the aisle to find these people. There are at least a dozen Democrats who have been consistently backing Bush the whole way. And trustworthy Republicans? Not even Ron Paul’s Iraq voting record is decent. From the day Pelosi took impeachment off the table, the only constitutional remedy to Bush-Cheney and their Iraq agenda, we were doomed to an impossible situation with no solution. Unless Bush at least fears impeachment, he and his allies will never move one inch on Iraq. Why should they?
With all due respect.. why are we listening to these “generals”? What are they trying to do in Iraq? Whatever they are trying to do it appears they have failed… aside from reigning enormous destruction and stirring up sectarian violence.
Isn’t it time to tell the generals what we want them to do? Isn’t that all about making America safe? We know every single reason given for the war was bogus. This means that there is no reason to be there. What are the republican members saying about the mission? If they are still drinking the cool aid how can you expect them to see the light?
The Bush clock ticks slowly.
Jerry McNerney @ 129
Neither am I. Many of us understand and there is only one you trying to keep up with all of us. Thank you.
Like Joe Wilson says, “offers of compromise are viewed as weakness on the other side and pocketed as concessions.
In a nutshell!
Congressman McNerney — Feel free to answer questions as long as you have time to do so. Please. We want to give you the time you need to answer as many as fully as you can.
Jerry McNerney @ 133
Thank you so much for being willing to do that to answer people’s questions, Congressman. We really appreciate it.
As much as Democrats may be just latte drinking, Volvo driving, New York Times reading wusses, it is undeniable that there is one thing they are not: Republicans. With all the frustration we all feel, that is enough to keep me supporting them.
jayackroyd @ 120
SanderO @ 115
Yes it’s time to think outside the box. I’m a mathematician and problem solver. I will listen to any good ideas. Iraq is a terrible mess, and as we all know, we now have a situation of choosing between bad alternatives. I do know that we need a veto-proof majority, and I believe many R’s are very anxious to find some way to end this thing asap.
Jerry McNerney @ 131
You can stay ’til 7:30AM if you’d like. We ain’t goin’ nowhere.
CTuttle @ 122
ok, you don’t get it…..
I agree with Softail. Please show us to be mistaken, Congressman.
Joe Wilson @ 96
Welcome Ambassdor Wilson – I think this is at the heart of our disappointment with the Dems current position regarding the veto-proof majority… I’m thinking we need to take the fight to them, everyday if need be…
Jerry McNerney @ 128
I for one am willing to give you whatever time it takes. Even though I have been critical, I really do appreciate that you are even here.
Jerry McNerney @ 132
I’m not official — this is Jane’s blog — but I think it’s safe to say that we’ll stick around as long as you will.
Jerry McNerney @ 129
As long as you’re willing to answer our questions, you’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest…!!!
I have been a member of the Democratic Party for 39 years. And the one thing I know for certain is that the Republicans view compromise as weakness.
Cong. McNerney, First, thank you for your willingness to come to FDL. It’s a breath of fresh air — particularly after 20 years of Talk Radio and short, sneering teevee smack-downs.
It appears that you most want to find a way to get some kind of veto-proof action through Congress. Given the fact that the CIA is evidently funding a DC Republican PR firm to support Allawi as a ‘replacement’ Prime Minister in Iraq, plus a $12 million WH ad campaign targeted at swaying ‘uneasy’ Republicans to stick with the BushCheney, I do believe that you have your work cut out for you.
As the frustration builds over Bush’s intransigence, and ‘lack of progress’ from Congress, I’m among those voters absolutely exasperated by federal politics.
Part of my frustation stems from the fact that I don’t see the Dems listing:
– Daily costs of staying in Iraq
– Lists of issues that aren’t being addressed b/c of the energy devoted to Iraq: environmental, economic indicators, DoJ firings…
… you get the idea
Why on earth aren’t the Dems more effectively communicating the LOST OPPORTUNITY COSTS we’re paying, due to the entrenched obstinance of this Administration?
BushCheney have succeeded in making the Iraq discussion so myopic — they’ve narrowed the conversation down to troop movements, and timelines. I feel that the Dems are allowing themselves to be led by the nose right into the minutia of confusion and time wasted second-guessing military plans.
Why aren’t the Dems better articulating the national costs of this disaster?! Only in that context can we have a more meaningful conversation about the political, economic, social, and environmental aspects of this nightmare. Why aren’t the Dems doing a better job of explaining these “Context Issues” to the American public?
Jane, Howie –thanks much! (Hope my comments are on topic.)
ditto to what Amb Wilson said…
howieklein @ 142
I’m stocked up on cheese doodles.
With all due respect Congressman, I think Jane’s question at 100, asking for a further explanation of the quotation attributed to you would be a great place to answer a number of questions in one fell swoop.
Joe Wilson at 137
Not all Dems are wusses.
Great honor to have Ambassador Wilson here.
As per usual Congressman, the Ambassador (and Mary at 6:32) cut right to it. As Iraq deteriorates, the GOP will use the “muddying” of this issue to paint you with their brush. For your own political future, you have to separate yourself from them now. You brought up FISA earlier. Republicans insulated themselves from the initial waves of criticism by saying that Democrats knew all about the violations. Fool me once shame on them. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Ambassador Wilson brought up at FDL in December, the very real possibility that we will have to fight our way out south through Basra. Ambassador Wilson asked: “Based on current US deployments to Iraq, what are the troop to task ratios and the force protection requirements?”
As a congressman, unless you want to shoulder blame for a retreat such as Napoleon made out of Russia, please press the WH, the GOP and the Pentagon for answers to questions such as Ambassador Wilson asked.
Thomas @ 143
lots of people have complained, but you will never hear about it b/c of the isolationist tactics of your Chief of Staff…..
Congressman McNerney – thanks for coming to FDL.
There are no more Pete McCloskeys in the GOP.
Jerry McNerney @ 141
As a fellow mathematician (as well as a member of the clergy), let me suggest that the GOP members are stuck in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The best mutual solution is cooperation, but they fear being hung out to dry.
How do you beat (and how can we help you beat) the Prisoner’s Dilemma?
jayackroyd @ 154
Especially since the quotation in its full Washington Post context makes it seem not at all about either FISA or the second supplemental.
Congressman- If it were up to you, would you favor withdrawal from Iraq in the shortest possible time- or would you allow the generals to make the decision about how many troops get withdrawn and when?
punaise @ 157
Sad, but true.
Jerry McNerney @ 133
There’s only really one question:
What makes you think that moderate Republicans will ever agree to a compromise of any kind on withdrawl? Wouldn’t any compromise that could satisfy the Republicans, and evade Bush’ veto, betray exactly the outcome that you were elected to make possible?
The impression here is that politicians who advocate war over diplomacy are the ones who are weak on defense.
i still want to know what you were told when you visited iraq
Congressman,
Regarding all of the above discussion, both questions and comments, doesn’t this all boil down to the fact that Cheney has said that he doesn’t care what the people think and that the White House, enabled by Alberto Gonzales, has made a habit of violating our Consitution? You as our representative have sworn to uphold that Consitution. Someone has to. Please take a moral and ethical stand. Make some noise. Take some risks. Please do something to bring us back into some kind of normalcy. Bush’s history illustrates that he operates like a child. He will hold his breath and turn blue until he gets what he wants, consequences be damned. In the meantime, our country is exposed to ridicule and hatred and we are killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
What would make republicans most likely to negotiate? A unified democratic majority favoring a timed withdrawal- or a divided democratic majority with many saying “Well progress is being made- it’s complicated- we maybe should ask the generals”?
Joe Wilson @92 has expressed so well what many here have said. May I suggest that one of your trusted aides review these questions and comments and group them. Nothing here is frivolous.
Hopefully, this is food for thought as you continue to fulfill your duties in congress. This is a lot to digest in one evening.
Congressman. Are we going to attack Iran???
QuakerGirl @ 92
I voted against the second supplemental and I even voted against the rule that made the supplemental possible. There were only 5 or 6 Dems that voted against it and I was one of them.
This is important because the second supplemental should never have been voted on. Once it went to the floor, it’s passage was assured. That’s why I wanted to stop it from getting to the floor.
But if we want to end the war we have to have a veto-proof majority. That’s why I keep emphasizing it. If you want to help, start putting pressure on R’s who voted to sustain the President’s veto of the first supplemental.
In my mind this is standing up to the President, but we need some brave R’s to join us.
It’s 7pm now, but i will stay until 7:30.
questions we got ….answers not so much….
LL @ 117
Agreed! I am disappointed, so far….
msmolly @ 171
me too, you lost my vote
I live in San Ramon. I worked for the Defenders last fall in CA-11.
As someone who organized potential volunteers and supporters for you last fall, and as a constituent in CA-11, I just wanted to say that we’re not as conservative as some may think.
Thomas @ 172
Who are you??
Jerry McNerney @ 169
That would be the entire Republican caucus, if I’m not mistaken. In your conversations with your unnamed GOP freshman counterparts, what do you see as the best pressure points for moving them and their more senior colleagues?
(And thanks for sticking around!)
jerry says at 133-”I’m not a very good typist, and can only answer so many questions. I hope you are all willing to let me stay till 7:30.”
you can stay as long as you like, last weekend, someone answered questions from 1 and on…and his computer crashed, so he and howie had to email his answers back and forth…….it mattered to him so that’s what he did……….he was here for hours after everyone left, but he answered every single freakin’ question…….i gave him money because of his dedication……………..
Congressman,
If you are waiting for a veto proof majority, this occupation is destined to continue. I hope you and the other Democrats realize that as long as you allow this to continue, the carnage will be your legacy as well as Bush’s.
Why not do what Sentor Feingold suggested. Just keep submitting the same legislation, let him veto it and then repeat. Show the country that you really mean business. Every time you back off, Bush wins.
Thank god for FDL.
Jerry McNerney @ 166
This is internally contradictory.
Did you need a veto-proof majority to keep the supplemental from the floor? Of course not. You just said that defeating the rule could have done it.
Now, defeating that rule would have been a tall order, but if the first part of your statement was true, then the second part can’t have been.
Congressman, as you seek to quietly negotiate a compromise on withdrawl from Iraq, the White House seems to be gearing up for a possible attack on Iran.
Can’t you see the urgency underlying the commenters anger, frustration and disillusionment here?
I’m probably too late, but what the heck:
Congressman, you have answered on three seperate occasions that you seek to “work with Republicans to form a veto-proof majority.” With all due respect, is this your only answer to the question of how to get the troops home? Right now it sounds less like an initiative (Quixotic at best) and more like an empty talking point.
I would respectfully submit that you may want to revisit your thinking on this.
Andy
Alton IL
If you’re going to wait for a veto-proof majority you’ll be waiting forever. Have any other tricks up your sleeve or is that it?
I’m sick of the progressive bloggers switching loyalties on Jerry McNerney by the hour. I see no conflict between his recent quotes in the Washington Post and what he posted on his blog. It’s enough that conservatives are taking his “If anything, I’m more willing to work to find a way forward” statement out of context. Now the progressive bloggers want to eat McNerney alive. They are nothing short of animals when they don’t get their way with a liberal politician. Lets not forget that McNerney’s stance on Iraq shouldn’t overshadow all the great things he has done for his district. That means nothing to out of district progressive bloggers who want to use McNerney like a tool and dispose of him at their leisure. They couldn’t care less about the district’s needs.
Rep. McNerney,
With all due respect sir, you seem to be missing a very important fact – while you attempt to bring over Republican congress people soldiers are dying. As someone with a nephew currently in Iraq I don’t really want to see him get shot just to give Republicans time to buck the President. So, how many lives are you willing to sacrifice for politicians who don’t want to wake up and smell the coffee!
And sir, I did donate to your campaign through this blog last time around.
I think part of the point of forcing Bush to keep vetoing over and over again is that he gets so belligerent when anyone opposes him (he seems to think the Congress are HIS employees, not ours) and the more belligerent he gets, the more obvious his madness is…
Make him veto troop withdrawal every week. Might work…
Jerry:
I understand you’re not answering this question in an open forum, though I think it would have helped. As a veteran of the Hill I understand the challenges of staff, particularly for a new member.
There is a problem that you have in communication between you and the people who worked very hard to get you elected (against the wishes of the DCCC, no less). It is a serious problem that we, in the blogosphere, notice. If you don’t, then you need to reevaluate how you and your staff communicate with these people.
In reading some of these comments, it also appears that the lack of responsiveness is not only limited to your netroots supporters. You *may* need a ‘come to Jesus’ with your staff.
I say all of this in the interest of creating a progressive majority. Many people believed in your when no one else would. I trust them that you are a true progressive, you just need someone to be on your staff to give you the confidence to vote your conscience and to help you sell it to the folks at home. You can do that!
Lane
Lane Hudson @ 7
Jerry McNerney @ 165
How exactly are we going to do that? They already know we won’t be voting for them.
Jerry McNerney @ 169
Naive or disingenuous? We report…you decide!
Talk is cheap with anonymous comments. I thnk people should let the Rep respond, think about it and reserve judgment. Who cares if some anonymous person makes an assertion about supposedly losing this or that when the next election is over a year away?
I would think we need to be constructive since there are important things to do with THIS congress over next year.
Lane Hudson @ 100
This is off topic, but Lane has asked this question 3-times. I have been in the district nearly every weekend, I hold congress at your corner every week, I’m on this blog. Anyone has the opportunity to ask me anything.
This is not the first time I’ve answered this question. I want to be open and accessible. I will clearly make mistakes, but i am doing the best I can to serve the people in my district.
I believe in an open campaign that works with the grassroots and netroots. You are changing democracy and I’m committed to participate with you.
Congressman, thanks for staying overtime. You are really generous with your time.
I am simply baffled by your insistence on a veto-proof majority. If the President vetoes timetable-affixed war funding, why not let the veto stand? Why send him any war funding without timetables?
Repeated weekly votes on timetable-affixed war funding will clarify for the American people who is “cutting off funding for our troops,” since that’s how the argument’s been framed.
Shouting in the dark at this point, but …
Congressman, your very language betrays you, and us. You’re looking for “sympathetic Republicans” and “open-minded Republicans“. For God’s sake man, get a grip. You make it sound like the Democrats are either sick and needing a get-well card from a sympathetic relative OR asking something really, really unreasonable for which these reasonable Republicans who don’t owe us anything and don’t have any responsibility to help need to keep an open mind.
What you need is Republicans who will put the best interests of the nation ahead of the delusions and petty grievances of the President and Vice President. And you need to make it clear first and foremost that if you can’t find those Republicans you’ll work like a dog to replace THEM with Democrats.
You say that we can help by putting pressure on Republicans. Well, we can’t make them vote on legislation, unless it is proposed. We can’t pressure them to vote on resolutions that don’t exist.
They hold their caucus together to block minimum wage legisation, a deeply unpopular move in many of the 21 Class II senate states.
And we cannot hold our caucus together on a vote to end the occupation?
We can help, believe me (ask Susan Collins) but we don’t hold a seat. You have to give us somthing to work with. And I reiterate–following a politics as usual strategy will divide the party, over an issue that America is showing more unity than the democratic caucus.
I have to leave and it is clear that there are many more questions than you have time to answer, so let me just offer a thought or two.
It is the nature of democracy to seek the compromises that benefit the many without disadvantaging the minority’s essential, constitutionally protected rights. And in normal times your ideas of persuading republicans of the value of your positions would be laudable.
These are not normal times and your political adversaries have a very different agenda as we have seen since the arrival of Newt, and then W to positions of power. It is clear that they are committed shredding of the constititution and the imposition of undemocratic and unAmerican practices including the politicization of those very institutions that have grown up over 230 years to protect our contract with those who govern us. It is an unprecedented power grab and simultaneous looting of the American treasury for the benefit of a few who they hope will keep them in power. You don’t negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy.
As an afterthought, the military takes orders from civilian authority. We don’t “negotiate” with generals.
repugs talk a good game but when the chips are down they stand with bushco…..
I’ll take that as a compliment and thank you for it.
Jonathan @ 155
Freaked-Out Canadian @ 163
Becasue they know the war is a tragic disaster, and they are feeling pressured to do the right thing.
Yet how many lives are we willing to waste by throwing up bills that have no chance in hell getting passed?
How many have died already this year alone? We want one more year of this? I commend Congressman McNerney for trying something new.
AJ @ 192
I don’t think striving for clarity from the Congressman is “being a jerk.” I do appreciate his being here, and for the work he has done on our behalf. I, for one, just want to make sure he understands us, and vice versa.
Andy
Congressman, with all due respect, you should certainly know that you can NEVER trust any Republican to do the right thing at any point.
Congressman,
Thanks again for taking the time to be here.
Regarding both my unanswered question at 75 and your response (to 92) at 170 (”If you want to help, start putting pressure on R’s who voted to sustain . . .”),
what better method of pressure do you propose than forcing R’s who must face their employers next year to vote every day to keep soldiers in harm’s way (and tragically dying) when the mission violates both the (ex Sec. State Colin)Powell Doctrine and both fails to advance any U.S. national interest and, in fact, undercuts both U.S. national security many vital national interests?
Congressman McNerney,
Thanks you for coming here and listening to our concerns. You’re a stand up guy. However, I have serious doubts about the likelihood of enough Republicans joining Democrats to make a veto-proof majority. My Republican Congressman (Wayne Gilcrest) is facing a serious primary challenge for having the temerity to vote against the Military Commissions Acts and in favor of the Democratic war funding bill that Bush vetoed. I fear the GOP leadership will use every tool at their disposal, including politicization of the Federal bureaucracy, to prevent that from happening.
Congressman McNerney, as someone who contributed to your campaign, although I’m not in your district, I do appreciate the fact that you’re willing to take on this sincere but unruly community!
Joe Wilson @ 195
What he said.
Thank you for coming Congressman.
You won’t be able to answer even half the questions posted here in the allotted time. But I hope you will print out this chat session and ponder the questions and tone displayed here. This is an angry crowd because we had hoped our work on behalf of Democrats and Blue America candidates would begin the road back to sanity and integrity.
As you ponder these questions, ask youself: What would you do if you supported a candidate in an important race at an important time, and your shiny new Member of Congress decided to trade in his or her independence for the ways of Ellen Tauscher?
Jerry McNerney @ 197
I would disagree with that assertion. They are being pushed by their base to “stand strong” on the war. To their supporters, that’s the right thing — but: They. Are. Wrong.
Jerry McNerney @ 170
With all due respect, I think you are grasping an anchor in hopes that it will magically turn into a lifesaver.
If all you can see as a goal is a “veto-proof majority”, you are blinding yourself to your own Democratic Majority and Congress’s ultimate weapon of funding.
You need to awaken to your own powers!
No money, no more!
Thanks for coming by Joe, and thank you also, Jerry.
Sheila @ 176
That was Senator EDWARDS. Please remember this when you vote in the Dem primary in your state.
Jerry McNerney @ 187
you’ll have our undying support as long as we don’t hear on Faux Spew, you’re name in support of Shrub’s agenda…!!!
Congressman,
With respect, I ask you to answer this question:
How many more people have to come home with melted faces, missing limbs and brain injuries because not even all the House Democrats can get it together enough to vote against a bad bill?
You want to end a war, or do you want to be collegial and well-liked by people on the Hill?
AJ @ 184
Folks in McNerney’s district have issues with him on several other topics. But those comments have been deleted because they’re OT. Just because Iraq is the only topic being addressed here doesn’t mean that Iraq is the only issue where people are unhappy.
Check out Linda in Tracy @ 9. Crickets.
SanderO @ 135
A quick primer: Petraeus is Bush’s sockpuppet. (Forget about Fallon) Odierno is Petraeus’ sockpuppet. Lynch is Odierno’s sockpuppet. Bergner is just a propagandist sent out from the White House.
Generals should be listened to but never allowed to influence political decisions. They are as dangerous as they are clueless at that level of decision making.
AJ @ 183
AJ, Balaboo is a constituent of McNerney’s, and worked on his behalf. Of all the great (unnamed) things McNerney’s done for his district, two things were critical in the election against Pombo: Iraq, and the environment. If anyone at FDL has reason to be upset, it’s Babaloo.
Switching loyalties is an interesting phrase. Perhaps it come from folks at FDL hearing good things on Iraq from Rep. McNerney, then things that concerned them, then good things, then things that concerned them.
So leaving aside your ad hominem remarks about everyone at FDL, do you have a question for Rep McNerney?
It is the nature of democracy to seek the compromises that benefit the many without disadvantaging the minority’s essential, constitutionally protected rights. And in normal times your ideas of persuading republicans of the value of your positions would be laudable.
These are not normal times and your political adversaries have a very different agenda as we have seen since the arrival of Newt, and then W to positions of power. It is clear that they are committed shredding of the constititution and the imposition of undemocratic and unAmerican practices including the politicization of those very institutions that have grown up over 230 years to protect our contract with those who govern us. It is an unprecedented power grab and simultaneous looting of the American treasury for the benefit of a few who they hope will keep them in power. You don’t negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy.
As an afterthought, the military takes orders from civilian authority. We don’t “negotiate” with generals.
Congressman,
The last time you were here I asked you to co-sponsor HR 1415, the Restore the Constitution Act, which would restore Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Conventions as the law of the United States. This is VERY important to me, because my husband was a Vietnam vet and POW who live with his injuries for over thirty years until his fatal heart attack two years ago. I am VERY disappointed that you have not done so. Words are all very fine, but I’m looking for ACTION.
Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter is doing it to whom.
Very sadly,
For Dan,
Heather
Peterr @ 159
As a game theorist it ain’t complicated. You raise the costs to them of misbehaving so its no longer a prisoner’s dilemma and they only have one course of action — support their constitutuents. Make them take difficult votes.
Softail @ 188
I’m sure some of you live in R districts. You can bring this up in a public way, make them answer in public. At my Congress at Your Corner events people approach me all the time with differing points of view. It’s very powerful when you have to answer to people in public.
what say you rep mcnerney on the coming war with iran? how soon is it to be??
The way to get a veto-proof majority is to keep passing bills. When one is vetoed, pass another one that is a little more painful to the R’s. Repeat, repeat and repeat until the R’s come along in self-defense.
I do worry that Cheney and Bush are not doing anything that needs to be done to improve situation in Iraq and region -real comprehensive talks with Iran for example.
Troops will be leaving soon anyway, since current levels are unsustainable.
So I see merit in trying to think outside box and trying to find way to get veto proof majority to give very clear directions to executive, not only for withdrawal but other measures as well.
I like ‘outside the box’. But I am a statistician, so I do worry about odds and probabilities. I would like to know what type of proposals would really attract a firm GOP vote against Bush.
Did Lincoln, in his darkest hours, ever call out for a veto-proof majority?
No.
You do what’s right.
Hugh @ 211
Okay, Hugh, I’ll agree with 95% of your argument, but, politics is not an Army thang…!!! ;-)
When congresspeople participate in the discussion and in setting the direction of national issues, then even people outside of the district can ask questions, especially when they stood behind the candidate when he was an underdog getting his start.
Brian Lawson @ 217
Agreed . . . but I was hoping to get that answer from Rep McNerney.
CTuttle @ 123
The Democratic Congress has provided billions of dollars above the admin’s request and above last years amount. We are putting the money out there. I’ve been fighting for Livermore and will continue to do it because of the great need.
Jerry McNerney @ 142
That might be true. But you have to provide them a climate where they can go there without being destroyed. Right now they see that their best interests is in sticking with Bush. (The Republican machine is *very nasty* – normal Republicans truly do not want to get on the bad side of that machine.) They’ll stick with it until it is cheap enough to stand with the average American or when they are ready to quit their job (and maybe pay a huge penalty for it). You think you are getting heat – you should stand in the boots of one of the dissonant Republicans to really see how bad it can get.
You cannot make the atmosphere more conducive to discussion until you shutdown the rabid right. You need to stand on your principles, defend your allies and then propose areas that those Republicans (who are fighting for their lives and their souls) to come to your side — because you aren’t going to travel to their side.
Mr. McNerney – we really need you to understand what is going on here -because it will be just as big and even more critical when we start on Global Warming. You’ve got some great things to contribute. Please make sure you are not hijacked by your opponents.
Shortly after the midterms, Chuck Schumer was quoted as saying that he expected the republicans to recognize the unpopularity of the occupation by summertime, and would themselves vote to end it. The idea seemed to be that in this way they would own both the inception of the war, and the failure of the occupation.
It sounds like you are adopting a similar attitude–that if the Democrats do nothing, the republicans will cave due the deep popularity. Leaving aside the practical question of whether the republicans will cave, is this not a profoundly immoral way to approach this devastating foreign policy failure?
Matt at 207 — I disagree with that as a premise. They are being pushed by the wingnut base to stay the course. But that is a tiny percentage in the grand scheme of the GOP. There are a LOT of pissed off and disgusted Republicans who have been letting Shelly Capito have it here in WV, just for starters. And I’m hearing that a lot of others in districts across the country — including in Utah, which is about as red as a state can go in GOP voting support — are getting an earful as well.
They are ripe for picking off. The key is that they need a reason to do so. And thus far, the Democratic leadership hasn’t pushed them into that decision point. THAT is what we need. We need to stand up and fight for this. They need to be forced into a choice — their constituents or George Bush.
ok, you don’t get it…..
Who doesn’t get it, Thomas at 142?
Congressman,
Thanks for coming here tonight. I can’t picture my congressman (Skelton) even trying to face the lions the way you have tonight.
I think you get the general feeling from your constituents (plus those of us nationwide) that a fundamental attitude change is necessary in Congress. We must fight them here so we’re not fighting them over there. Please step up to the fight!
Jerry McNerney @ 198
Ah, this is the nub of the issue. My guess is, there aren’t many commenters who can think of Republicans who have, in the last seven years, done the “right thing”.
Well, maybe Chuck Hagel, and…um…(crickets chirping)
Excuse my flippancy, Congressman, but this is the issue. You believe that the Republicans are on the cusp of being courageous and righteous in the defence of the Constitution and the will of the American people.
Most of the commenters look at the clear, unequivocal record of the Bush era and wonder how you can be so blindingly…(ahem)…optimistic.
Jerry McNerney @ 216
That’s the beauty of our ‘House’, the framers knew what they were doing…!!!
Jonathan @ 224
Adding to that thought – George Bush doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what you think so you shouldn’t worry hurting his feelings!
Has Congress now completely abandoned (as it did our Fourth Amendment rights) Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, and specifically its enumerated powers to “Declare War” by majority vote without presidential approval or disapproval [and therefore to unilaterally “Undeclare War” if one honors the clear intent of the authors and ratifiers of that provision] – or is the Legislative Branch afraid to commit to the pursuit of that vital, fundamental Constitutional principle (that the power to begin and end war is solely vested in the people through their legislature) so as to force the Judicial Branch to reach a clear-cut conclusion on it, one way or the other?
[Which would allow us to begin to plan to amend our Constitution if the Supreme Court ends up ruling that the president alone may now choose when to begin, or at least end, wars (provided he can keep his political faction in Congress in line, as now) - which is the dangerous de facto situation we find ourselves in today - such that war is harder to end than to begin when the president decides to continue a conflict despite the majority wishes of the Congress which first granted authority for the engagement of our Armed Forces.]
Http://wa4richardson.blogspot……ation.html
Http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..v=hcmodule
P.S. I think I understand where you are coming from, Rep. McNerney, with regard to the leadership of your party. I have great concern, post-FISA, about the honesty and integrity of the leadership, potentially even as they interact with members of their own caucus. I feel Congressional Democrats must start to go public (even if anonymously) if they are being misled by their own party’s leadership, and blind-sided into votes that are detrimental to the interests of the American people (like FISA and the Iraq supplemental capitulation).
I may be beating a dead horse at this point, but I don’t think anyone disagrees about pressuring Republicans to come to Jesus on the war. I actually think it is a great idea for you to be doing this up on the Hill with individual Republicans.
What I question is talking about it publicly. There seems to be little for you to gain from talking to the press, unless someone has tried to make the case that appearing “moderate” on the war and conciliatory towards Republicans is to the benefit of your re-election. That could not be further from the truth.
Thanks, Jerry, for being here tonight. Years ago, we all hoped that our electeds would come by and participate…and our hopes for so long went unfulfilled.
My, how times have changed and this is what the blogosphere is all about.
Again, I disagree with you about this issue, because I don’t trust Republicans to do anything for this country, public pressure or no…but thanks for coming by.
Jerry McNerney @ 224
That bill, of course, is under veto threat from George W. Bush. Another veto-proof majority issue, I presume.
Congressman,
Thanks again for your particpation and staying an extra half hour.
Concerning my unanswered question at 75 and your response (to Quaker Girl at 90) in your response at 170
(”If you want to help, start putting pressure on R’s who voted to sustain the veto . . .”), what better method of pressure do you suggest than forcing R’s who must face their employers next year to vote every day in support of keeping our troops in place (and tragically dying and being injured) on a mission which violates the Powell Doctrine, fails to advance any national interest, and undercuts U.S. national security and other vital national interests?
I must say I admire Mr. McNerney for resigning from the United States Military Academy in 1971 in protest of the Vietnam War. And his efforts on behalf of Mother Earth.
Softail @ 132
I really do appreciate how hard everyone worked on my behalf and I will do the best I can on this and all of our difficult issues.
I also want to thank everyone for spending part of your Friday evening on this.
I have to say, this has been a good experience
and look forward to doing it again.
jerry says-”I voted against the second supplemental and I even voted against the rule that made the supplemental possible. There were only 5 or 6 Dems that voted against it and I was one of them.
This is important because the second supplemental should never have been voted on. Once it went to the floor, it’s passage was assured. That’s why I wanted to stop it from getting to the floor. “
=============
ok, ok, you’ve said that already……what i want to know is, what did they say to you in iraq?
Congressman McNerney,
Has there been any discussion within the Congress about putting the Iraq funding in the budget and ending the practice of using supplementals? It seems to me that the easiest way to get Republicans to end the war is to ask them to pay for it.
Jerry McNerney @ 224
Shrub seems to be determined to utilize his newfound veto pen…!!! 8-(
Sorry Kagro X, we crossed…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 240
Given your usual comments about DC folks, this is high praise!
And I concur, wholeheartedly!!!
Freaked-Out Canadian @ 203
Yep.
Thanks for putting up with these guys Jerry! You’re a good man.
Is it difficult dealing with ungrateful progressive bloggers who don’t care one bit about the needs of your constituents?
[CHS notes: Please stop the repetitive cut and paste commenting. Rep. McNerney has enough questions to answer without having to read through your same comment on multiple occasions. Thanks.]
Mr. McNerney – you get a great big gold star for coming here tonight… thank you.
Shadowstalker @ 230
Your congressman is practically a Republican– at least judging by his voting record. We may have some disagreements with tactics here but Jerry stated from the very beginning that his goal is to get us out of Iraq and he thinks the draw-down should start before Christmas. I’m not so certain that Skelton really even wants anything different in Iraq than what Cheney wants. I hope I’m wrong since he seems to have a lot of pull with Pelosi.
Congressman,
Again I thank you for your willingness to put yourself in front of a semi-hostile audience and attempt to address our concerns.
We would be better served as a nation if 534 of your fellow members of Congress in both houses could see their way to do the same thing.
Jerry McNerney @ 220
Ha. I live in John Doolittle’s district. He thinks all Democrats are spawn of the devil. And I don’t think he is atypical of Republicans in representing his district as if the voters are inconvenient biennial nuisances.
Congressman, I don’t mean this in a mean or cruel way at all, but you strike me as a little naive. Just because you have an open mind and are willing to represent your Republican constituents doesn’t mean that other representatives will be similarly all-embracing.
what did they say to you in iraq, and on the plane home that made you say what you did?
In trying to quote Joe Wilson, I quoted him and then for some reason could not add my comments.
I just wanted to say that I agree with him and that your highest duty is to represent the people and uphold the Consitution. I do not think that makes me beyond the fringe in any way, shape or form. That makes me mainstream, at least if you assume that a person has read the Consitution.
Think Barbara Lee.
Think Senator Feingold
Stand up for what is right. Forget the Republicans.
Pachacutec @ 223
Thanks, Pachacutec. I gave more than I’ve ever given to candidates in 2006, plan to do it again, and rely on ActBlue and Blue America. I don’t live in the district of any of the candidiates I supported. I think 19 of the 22 candidates I supported were elected. I agree that those elected should give us some credence.
rwcole @ 161
It’s important to listen to the generals on logistics of getting our troops out safely. But, this is ultimately the decision of the Congress and the will of the American people, and I will insist on a date certain.
AJ @ 248
Which part of “Balaboo is a constituent of McNerney’s” did you not understand?
Amb Wilson. WOW you nailed it!
Thank you, Congressman.
Rep. McNerney,
Can you name more than 3 or 4 open-minded Goopers in Congress who might vote with the Dems for withdrawal?
Do they exist?
Have you spoken to any?
McNerney 142,
“That might be true. But you have to provide them a climate where they can go there without being destroyed. Right now they see that their best interests is in sticking with Bush. (The Republican machine is *very nasty* – normal Republicans truly do not want to get on the bad side of that machine.)“
Or what??? Are they threatened?? What is it?? Get these people out of our government, if they have such powers!! We don’t have to provide them with anything. They disregard the law, disregard subpoenas from Congress. What is this?? Take a stand. Get together with your friends, and tell them to stop them. That is what you are there for. For he sake of America. (and just a personal note, please never use the term “Homeland”. Thanks.) Also, thanks for putting up with the barrage of questions, we the people have.
Jerry McNerney @ 258
Make that date really, really soon!
There have been so many questions I haven’t addressed. This weekend i will read through all your questions.
OKK,
Badgers, for example, serve a useful purpose.
So do skunks.
Neither have served in Viet Nam.
I can appreciate what they do for Mother Nature.
But don’t want ‘em in my house.
SanderO @ 257
He always does!
Joe Wilson @ 194
“….It is an unprecedented power grab and simultaneous looting of the American treasury for the benefit of a few who they hope will keep them in power. You don’t negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy.”
Amb. Wilson’s eloquence and passion is reminiscent of a Thomas Jefferson quote about Napoleon; “the wretch…who has been the author of more misery and suffering to the world, than any being who ever lived before him. After destroying the liberties of his country, he has exhausted all its resources, physical and moral, to indulge his own maniac ambition, his own tyrannical and overbearing spirit.”
rwcole @ 165
Please answer this question, Congressman McNerney.
AJ @ 248:
Well, many of us “ungrateful progressive bloggers” gave money to McNerney in ‘06, urged others to give money, even though none of us were McNerney constituents. We cared about the needs of his constituents enough to help get him elected.
Jerry McNerney @ 265
Thank you.
Thanks for participating tonight! It does say something about your willingness to reach out.
I know we are running out of time here Jerry, but it would be great if you could answer the questions that you couldn’t get to. I am sure we could find an outlet for them.
RockPaperScizzors @ 266
just an amplification
Thank you for appearing here tonight.
Thanks, Jerry. Gutsy. Call.
Jerry McNerney @ 142
It seems both natural and realistic that a mathematician would focus on counting votes. Certainly, that has been an area in which we’ve been compromised… on so many levels. Frankly, I was disheartened in both 2000 and 2004 at the lack of willingness to fight to count the votes, as well as the lack of serious attention given to the many reports of voting irregularities…
Having said that, I do think the Congressman has a point. He and the others were elected not merely to make symbolic statements, but to have some practical effect. Unfortunately, the number of reliable votes has not yet kept up with the public’s opinion. No surprise, it usually takes a little more time.
The key seems to be in the Congressman’s statement, “…and I believe many R’s are very anxious to find some way to end this thing asap.”
I do think there are some Republicans who are concerned about the next election, and who might be convinced to put the long-term future of their party ahead of the short-term satisfaction of obstructing the entire Democratic agenda. They need to be approached from all angles… by constituents, colleagues, etc.
Perhaps discussion (not just now, but later on over the next weeks/months) could focus on who/what/when/where/how to shift some of these votes. (Also, the same pressure needs to be applied to any of the small minority of Democratic members who have been voting with the Republicans. Surely, they must prefer being part of a majority… ?!)
Congressman,
It’s true that we need a veto-proof majority to end the war. The question is, how do we get there?
I think that instead of making concessions to President Bush, we need to come up with a timeline for withdrawal that will have broad public support and keep on sending it to the President, thus forcing vulnerable Republicans to choose between Bush and trying to keep their jobs. It may violate the spirit we wish would prevail in American politics, but it seems the case that hardball is the only thing they know. What do you think?
Thank you very much for joining us. I do hope you and your staff will read through this thread, and note the moral, practical and political benefits of taking a strong stand. Most importantly, if you really want those of us with Republican reps and senators to put on the pressure, you have to give us some clear votes to work with. We can’t hold their feet to the fire if you don’t set it ablaze.
Congressman McNerney, thank you for coming to the Lake today. I appreciate that you are trying to do the right thing, and I appreciate even more the fact you are willing to have a back-and-forth conversation with regular people.
Don’t feed the troll folks.
Thanks Jerry for taking the time to talk with us all. Having an open line to a Congressman is something to be treasured.
Jerry McNerney @ 263
Many thanks for coming — more than a few of your colleagues would likely not do so.
After you’ve had a chance to digest the other questions, please do drop in to provide any further responses. (John Dean, in one of the best “FDL Book Salon” threads ever, did so a couple of days later, much to the surprise and delight of the entire community.)
TeddySanFran @ 257
Seconded.
peterboy @ 258
The only good Republican is a…
Republican afraid of losing his seat. I was just doing some research on Republican rubber stamp James Walsh from upstate NY for tomorrow’s Blue America session with Dan Maffei and I noticed that Walsh rubber stamped every single Bush agenda item in Iraq until February when he realized his district was opposed to the occupation that he could either start changing the way he voted or get ready for a new career. He voted on one bill with the Democrats, got screamed at by the leadership and slinked back into the rubber stamp category. He will be defeated in 2008– and it won’t even be close.
Jerry McNerney @ 254
As a proud twenty-yr Army noncom vet, it takes time to move material, yet, we have no departure date contemplated, much less planned for, time to get of the sh*tter…!!!
does anyone know of ANY goopers who would vote for withdrawal?
it seems to me that you are talking about the others, republicans, and what we need to do to influence them, and not about yourself so much……….
Dante Atkins (hekebolos) @ 277
Please…answer this one!
If not now, on your own time.
AZ Matt @ 185
These soldiers are real people, not just numbers. How do the people in congress sleep at night knowing your capitulation to the republics allow another son/daughter to come home in a box? This insanity has to stop. We can’t wait to work things out with people who are not reasonable, people who don’t give a rats ass about those kids dying in Iraq because they dont know anyone there.
Joe Wilson, you ROCK!!! My favorite quote,
“You don’t negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy.”
That says it all.
As Joe Wilson succinctly stated, “…offers of compromise are viewed as weakness [by BushCheney] and pocketed as concessions.”
Why aren’t the Dems clearly stating that if Bush were in charge of plane design, it would have 18 fins (17 developed by Halliburton), 28 landing wheels, one wing, and seat 5 passengers?
There are issues with the way that BushCheney spec’d this war, and then ‘engineered’ it to bogus specs.
But BushCheney are counting on keeping the conversation myopic, b/c that’s the only way they can win the argument. The ONLY way. Within the larger context of world affairs, it becomes crystal clear that this war is a fiasco on unparalleled scale. Why aren’t the Dem’s articulating that bigger picture?
As for engineering specs: what President would send troops to a country where we can’t even deliver enough new Humvees?? Why aren’t the Dems saying, ‘We refuse to keep troops in a nation when we can’t even deliver them Humvees’.
Although my reference to a video about how Democrats should respond to Republican frames was referred to in the post above, it somehow got left out of the post itself. You can watch it at DWT I urge you to take a look at then vote with your dollars– or even one dollar– on how you feel at our Blue America page. Jerry’s approach? Darcy’s approach? Both?
It was really pretty incredible that Jerry came by today. I know many members of this community will join me in thanking him for his time and service.
Tomorrow, Blue America’s newest candidate is Dan Maffei from upstate New York (the Syracuse area). That’sll be 2pm (EDT)/11am (PT). I hope you can make it.
AJ @ 182
Well, a lot of his financial supporters came from out of his district. Over Iraq.
Thanks Howie!
and Congressman McNerney
NYBri @ 239
Thanks NYbri. This is the whole reason I want to come here and interact. We need to listen with an open mind and work together to find an and to this and other challenges.
I decided to run for Congress with support from my family because I was so dismayed about what was happening in DC. Now, thanks to your help, it’s my turn to do what I can.
Thanks again,
jerry
Incredible efforts and dedication, Howie. Thanks to you most of all!
See you Saturday.
Thank you congressman!
I haven’t read through the comments, I don’t even know if the congressman is still here but I hope so
I tell you right now, we need no such thing as a veto proof bill
the president needs to approve funding, he can veto the funding bill but that means he gets no money
there it is, the troops come home…the democrats can pass a budget with specific dollars for specific programs
if the president veto’s the bill he runs out of funding
bing, end of war
we do NOT need a veto proof majority
that ticket doesn’t get stamped
if this point has been made before and addressed, someone please direct me to that post number
Thank you, Congressman. Sincerely.
Congressman McNerney,
Thanks for taking the time to debate your position. I understand where you are coming from. For the moment, let me set aside the merits of your claim that the only way to end this war is with a veto-proof majority. The problem with your approach is not that your intent is wrong but your seeming lack of awareness of how your words will be used against you and the Democratic party by the GOP, reducing an already weak position (”Dems cannot end the war without a veto-proof majority”) to a non-existent one (”look, even Democrats agree that what Reid and Pelosi are doing is wrong and agree that we need more time to deal with Iraq rather than cut-and-run”).
The #1 rule of effective negotiation (and compromise) is not to give away your bargaining power in PUBLIC – and the problem is that you have compromised the Democrats’ bargaining power by publicly making the kinds of statements that you have.
Again, I don’t question your intent or progressivism. I am suggesting that success does not flow merely from ideology, belief, and good intent. Words and tactics matter. You can’t start exiting Iraq before 2009 if you inadvertently destroy the Democratic party’s public relations battle on Iraq.
I appreciate the Congressman’s visit and time. I hope he will find a way to answer questions, but also the heart to change the route he is on.
we appreciate the time you’ve spent here on the lake rep mcnerney – please come again…and do take time to read and respond to the many questions asked here tonight
Thank you Jane, Christy, Howie, et alia….
The internet is an amazing thing.
perris @ 294
All that’s required is character and the courage to match.
The people are speaking… let their representatives act on their behalf.
I deeply appreciate the forum that FDL and Rep. McNerney provided us tonight to interact one-on-one with one of our federal representatives. Members of Congress today – particularly Senators – seem to have become masters at isolating themselves from the public so as to avoid any direct questioning by informed constituents.
This was a great democratic service to us all. Thank you, Rep. McNerney, Jane, Christy, and Howie Klein.
Thanks for coming, Congressman. I hope you will think carefully about some of the ideas we have laid out here , and we will think about what you have said as well.
Thank you, Congressman. This is a tough savvy crowd. I wish to leave you with a thought.
I am active in the Democratic Party in Nevada and have events at my home there. We have as many Republicans attending as Democrats and Independents. The Republicans are there because they are true conservatives and are disgusted with their party.
On the other hand, they are becoming disappointed with the Democrats as well for not taking what they feel is a strong stand and capitulating to the Republicans. These are well informed people. They know they’ve been had. Democrats can do well by taking a strong leadership position.
God bless the toobz! Someday America will be democratic. My sincere thanks to Jane, Christy and company for providing this forum.
i hope this format is repeated across country – we need to have lots of these lakeside chats imo…
Why are congress critters so good at dodging their constituents and so easy to sit with lobbyists?
pow wow @ 304
Yes.
Well, I donated to FDL instead of the congressman this time. Just for GP.
peterboy @ 284
I think that a number of them will, when faced with the prospect of losing their seats. As far as the Congressman went, it is true. This occupation will not end until the republicans cave. But the way to make them cave is to take unrelenting, uncompromising stands. Force them to say that they want no fixed withdrawal date. Make them vote, over and over again, on continuing the occupation indefinitely.
My problem is not with the obvious observation that the republicans have to be brought on board. I think you’ll see caving on the senate side, especially with the President’s decision to attack wavering Republicans on television.
But they won’t cave if they can hide behind democrats. The response to “the surge is working” is not “well, yeah, I guess so.” The response is to haul out Hugh’s numbers and recite them, one by one, and say “Shifts in Sunni allegiences in Anbar has nothing to do with the escalation. The escalation was about securing Baghdad. Before the escalation, at least the government controlled the electrical grid. The escalation has not even been able to hold that.”
Don’t fall for this silly political progress side issue. The surge has failed. Baghdad is not more secure. It is not safe for the Iraqi government to leave the Green Zone, never mind conduct the business of rubberstamping the administration’s check list.
That’s what to say. That’s what Newt would say. That’s what Rove would say. Take it to them.
QuakerGirl @ 306
The people are pissed off, period!!! It’s a bipartisan notion…
QuakerGirl @ 304
Excellent points, thank you.
Tithonia @ 301
for a minute there, I thought you said externet.
SanderO at 309 — Because lobbyists have the money to spend to show up wherever the elected folks happen to be. Folks in the districts have to go to work where they are — and because the elected folks are in DC, that isn’t where most of us are every day. The chats that Rep. McNerney does in his district are a great idea — wish more elected folks did them regularly, it would be a good thing for all of us.
It’s one of the main reasons we try and have folks on for chats as often as we can on FDL. And why we urge folks to contact their representatives — it’s just as much our job to let them know what we are thinking as it is their job to listen to us. It’s this little thing that I like to call “democracy in action.” *G*
Thanks to Howie and Jane for tonite’s event.
Maybe someday someone will explain to me the need for a veto-proof majority. All we need is a more unified caucus to pass repeated timetable-affixed war funding bills. Send the Usurper bills until his veto pen runs out of ink.
Unless I’m wrong, of course, and there are some Magical GOPs in Congress who plan to cross their president. I’ve yet to see them named, and fully expect them to be primaried from the right should they emerge from their hidey-holes to vote to end the war.
Thanks again to Congressman McNerney and to FDL.
dmac @ 285
Or even how to get the rest of the dems on board.
howieklein @ 291
Howie, thanks for inviting me and making this possible. Darcy is a great candidate and her ad makes this clear. We need to make it clear to the leadership that we will go to the wall about FISA when it comes up again.
The level of discussion here has been very good. I wish i could have answered all the questions.
Please feel free to visit my blog and make additional comments.
Jerry
Thank you so much, Jane, Christy et al. I feel I have a voice again thanks to you. I also appreciate the civil manner in which FDL conducts these sessions. You are a class act.
I’ll take McNerney over Pombo any day — there’s a learning curve and being willing to come here is a great sign. Thank you for visiting Rep. McNerney.
pow wow @ 304
Dammit. My mother is rolling in her grave. I didn’t thank the hosts.
Thank you so much Howie, Jane and Christy. It must have been a spot of work getting this set up. One of the things that always amazes me about FDL is that you never see the wires. Spectacular events, pulled off with apparent ease and great grace.
a coupla other things I’d like to get off my chest;
1) I want anyone who defies subpoena thrown in jail
2) I want the vice president’s office in the white house defunded until he honors subpoena
3) I want scooter libby interviewed again, I want truthful answers this time and if he obstructs justice I want another trial, I want him sentenced and I want the president to pardon him to prevent this from happening
then I want scooter questioned with no fifth amendment rights since he can no longer incriminate himself
I want the criminals brought to the bar of justice, i want the evidence of their crimes made public and I want our constitution returned to this country
Thank you Rep McNerney talking with us, and FDL and Blue America for arranging this.
Thanks everyone, have a great evening and keep up the conversation.
TeddySanFran @ 318
Teddy – I think the Dems are almost congenitally frightened of the Wurlitzer that they don’t even give it a second thought.
PS And thanks to the Mods tonite, of course!
Brian Lawson @ 319
Let’s never, ever, ever forget that. Turning out Pombo was a great victory for the netroots and the grassroots.
And we can disagree with Congressman McNerney’s tactics, but it’s clear that he shares our objective to end this tragic war.
http://www.boomantribune.com/s…..224417/670
My two cents.
ccmask @ 309
Thanks for that!! Our Blue America PAC is falling behind and we can sure use some contributions.
Sorry about my rudeness Howie. I didn’t mean to exclude you. Many thanks for making this forum possible. @317 you too.
Jerry McNerney @ 319
Thanks so much for being here tonight, Congressman, and for addressing people’s concerns. It was very heartening that you took the time and made the effort to do so.
Quaker Girl,
I’m certainly hearing that in OH-18.
Jerry McNerney @ 319
You’ve been most honorable in my opinion, I’d be proud to vote for ya, mine is Mazie Hirono, you should chat with her!!!
Peterr @ 226
Peterr — sorry, didn’t mean to take away your teachable moment.
It’s time the Democrats screamed their heads off about what is being done to this country and the world. I am a very partisan Democrat. And I am angry with my party. I am in no mood for compromising with the GOP and Karl Rove. I make no apoligies to anyone for saying that.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 333
I’m standing right along side you.
Jerry McNerney @ 323
Oh, we will. Plus, we do ALOT more than just converse.
Many thanks to all involved in making this happen. Fantastic!
BooMan @ 329
Dang, even the venerable Booman made an appearance, Gawd, I love the Lake!!! *g*
My thanks also to Jane, Howie, Christie and commenters for this amazing opportunity and discussion, which of course would have only been possible because of Jerry McNerney’s courage to spend this time with us!
QuakerGirl @ 337
Me 2
Brian Lawson @ 335
Not a problem . . . and if Rep McNerney takes the time to read and digest the whole thread, perhaps the moment will not pass.
Malacandra @ 328
Nice guy, but hopelessly naive.
I’m shocked that a Democratic representative could really believe that talking nicely to Republicans in 2007 is enough to convince them to vote against the Republican party.
Joe Wilson @ 195
Yeah. What he said.
Gore/Dean ‘08
howieklein @ 330
My pleasure Howie. Really. I am not a direct “constituent” of Jerry, but I’m related on the Dem side :))
Perris @ 323
Hear Hear!
>edited…oh never mind.
I didn’t get the impression Joe Wilson was 15 and eating cheetoes in his jammies…did you?
LS @ 341
Me3, speaking of which, where’s Me3? ;-)
I’m with Booman. I’m not impressed. Yes, he’s willing to show up, but all he said was “we need a veto-proof majority”. Never replied to Joe Wilson. Never said who we might peel off. Some crap about “negotiating with generals” – how are you going to do that? They all hold the Bush position, or they get fired.
OK, better than Pombo, but that doesn’t make him worth writing home about.
Well Darcy got my fifty…
Thanks FDL and Howie for this. It was an eye opener that is for sure.
Please compare Congressman McNerney’s openness and willingness to hear us out with Watertiger’s depiction of Congressman Tom Davis at a recent town hall meeting in his district.
GordonM @ 349
There is no need to negotiate with the Generals when the white house is writing reports for them and dictating what they can and cannot say.
This was FDL at its very best. My congratulations to all. Beautifully handled and why do the words “boiled in oil” keep coming into my mind?
GordonM @ 349
Yup. doubtless well intentioned – but never left his talking points and not at all forthcoming about anything. Strikes me as someone who is seriously out of the loop.
QuakerGirl @ 307
Just FYI – I’m seeing the same thing in a different part of the country. And some of the people that I know have voted Republican now for at least 25 years, so we’re watching a sea-change.
(However, speaking personally, if it weren’t for Howard Dean, I wouldn’t give a tinker’s damn about the Democratic Party. I’ll support BlueAmerica, but I have no time whatsoever for the DLC-wing of the Dems.)
Jane, Howie, and Cong. McNerney — thank you.
Do you suppose our Congress people have even discussed sending Bush the bill over and over again?
I don’t get the impression they’ve even considered this as a tactic. I don’t think they realize that in order for us to pressure our reps, we need something to pressure them over…
Redd @316
I have tried to make an appointment to speak with my critter Eliot Engel on the phone or at any of his district offices or even go to DC. He simply ignores my requests. But that is probably because I berated him politely when he was first supporting the war.
He’s a slacker who wears a D hat but needs to be replaced.
TeddySanFran @ 350
Sorry, search for “McNerney says” and you’ll see: not much.
tbsa @ 352
True, their existence is predicated on their capitulation…!!!
ferg @ 343
I agree completely, and I’ll be contributing my $$$ elsewhere.
McNerney and the rest of the Dems [are you listening, Reid & Pelosi?] need to understand how unattractive weakness is, how Americans of all political stripes long for leaders who will stand up for the Constitution and for the country, rather than testing every political wind.
The McNerneys of the world are NOT going to attract either Republican Congresspeople or voters of any stripe — to get to that “veto-proof majority” — as long as they don’t STAND UP TO BUSH.
What is so tragic is that every day this drags on people are dying and getting blown to bits…
And in the end… it will all have been for naught.
And Kerry’s Nam words will ring tue…
“who will be the last to die….”
I can hear the sound of someone doing the Indian Love Call from out back. Just me, her, the coyotes and the moon tonight. Nite.
SanderO @ 361
Amen.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 363
You dawg! Nite OKK.
If Mr. McNerney wants to see why no R’s are going to come along, he probably should read Think Progress’ report on the right wing attack on John Warner.
In private, the R’s might be concerned but they don’t want the neocon machine riding their backsides…
Bill Maher on.
SanderO @ 362
Most tragically, if someone in DC doesn’t grow a pair, our grandchildren may.
Just so there’s no misunderstanding:
In the U.S., the military is subject to civilian control via the executive branch.
The Secretary of the Army, for example, a civilian, can legally order any army general to jump. The general’s only question, under law, in response is, how high?
Those in congress may negotiate with the executive branch, but never with generals.
It’s a separation of powers matter.
I got here late and read every comment. Jerry is better than Pombo and should be re-elected but he said nothing..I have no idea what he is thinking. It’s all bullshit and it doesn’t make political sense for his re-election. Veto-proof majority? WTF; maybe in 2012 if we all aren’t in the camps. He is really a disappointment.
OldCoastie @ 356
I want government to shut down if Shrub vetoes any mandatory spending bills with any serious binding riders attached…!!! Bring it on!!!
ccmask @ 366
Bill Moyers? ;)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 362
Yeah, go bay at the moon…!!! 8-)
give him plaudits for being here – i still say answers……not so much
RockPaperScizzors @ 371
Real Time with Bill Maher
Is there any comparison to these FDL forums in the Repube blogsphere? And regardless of what you think about him, any Repube comparison to McNerney answering questions from random people, mostly outside his district, in real time?
A real testament to all involved.
New Thread
I put up a quick post with my initial thoughts over at Calitics, for those who are interested.
Julia Rosen @ 377
Thanks, Julia.
Now that Rep. McNerney isn’t here any more I think your diary is an excellent place for people to hash out their responses.
Congressman, I realize you’ve left the building, but I’m posting this in the hope that you’ll be reading this later.
There is nothing in it for Republican legislators to compromise with us. Any of them that waver will be targeted by their own party in the next primaries. Already, Ari Fleischer is heading up an organization that will spend over $15 million dollars running pro-war ads in districts that are already represented by Republicans. Sir, you have nothing to offer them to get them to join you in a “veto-proof” majority.
Senator Edwards was right. You should send Bush the same bill, week after week, and make him veto it week after week. The American public is overwhelmingly against this war and this president. We should take the spectacle of him thwarting the will of the American people again and again, and hang it around the necks of the legislators who continue to support him in the next election.
It’s painfully clear that the only reasonable Republican is one who is afraid of dealing with a hostile constituency in an upcoming election.
Quit playing nice with these people. They think you’re a patsy.
How should we characterize this congressman and most of colleagues? Weak.. and an earlier comment has it right. The American electorate doesn’t respect weakness. Did everyone work so hard this last election to send spineless weaklings to represent us? A very discouraging session I must say.
Peterr @ 159
That is a tough question to ask a freshman Congressman. The answer is to put things in writing and nail it down like a great contract for the ages OR Trust. Most don’t trust (Republicans have great reason to not trust someone [the Dems] who have every reason to want major revenge) and some, such as our guest, aren’t really in a position to offer anything the leadership could slough off or contradict.
Sometimes you’ve just gotta hold out your hand and shake on a deal. Trust, but verify I suppose.
In this fight the strategy can’t come from every Congressman. It has to be a unified party strategy, usually coming from the leadership. Right now I think part of our frustration is that the leadership is somewhat fractured and that leads to confusion. Speaker Pelosi seems to have the edge, but occasionally gives Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel some room to assert themselves and it isn’t working as fast as we’d like.
We need ONE strategy: gain the public trust and support.
Once you have that you can force the hand of Republicans (who might actually be relieved of the pressure to continue supporting Bush).
We have to convince the public in certain districts and states to pressure their Congresscritters to end it, split from Bush, get out.
Our guest can only work toward that goal by talk talk talking to everyone about getting out.
So, I suppose the final direction from firedoglake is to stop saying anything which sounds remotely supportive of Bush policies and talk to Congressional Republicans in private until they come around.
Publicly, Dems need to be united behind one idea we all want: we should leave Iraq as soon as we can.
That leaves room for various tactics, timetables and other details.
Politics isn’t like maths. It’s messier, less clear, less obvious, more emotional. But, if we have a common goal and we assert ourselves together we can reach the public.
It’s a shame it has to be such an overwhelming Congressional force needed to bring the president into check. But, that’s his call and both he and the Republican party are going to pay a heavy price for his obstinance.
ccmask @ 179
Um, yeah.
It’s clear Congressman McNerney really has no intention of keeping his campaign promises, waiting around for some remote future when there is a veto-proof majority. I see no reason why he should continue to be endorsed on Actblue. I especially see no reason why Rep. Brian Baird of Washington State who has gone over to the dark side totally, is endorsing the occupation, and now has the blood of American troops on his hands, should have the benefit of being endorsed on Actblue.
Jerry McNerney @ 142
Congressman McNerney…doesn’t mean that obtaining a “veto-proof” majority means that you somehow have to compromise, not with the one or two Republican Congresspersons who might swing to a reasonable position, but to that one that is about #88 on the list behind them.
Such a “solution” will likely mean that you will
a) retain troops in Iraq indefinitely, only getting “superficial” withdrawals.
b) never be able to revisit your vote down the road when conditions are such that politically Republicans are compelled to react more favorably.
c) likely have no fixed deadlines…at least until well AFTER the Bush Adminsitration is long gone and the 2008 Elections have passed.
At what point do you compromise your positions to appease that final Republican you need to win your “veto-proof” majority. You say that Democrats can “Do Nothing” until the have that veto-proof majority. But if the consequences of that is an Amendment that is so tepid as to “Do Nothing” what hae you really gained. It would be a “DO Nothing” Resolution.
Did we elect you to obtain do-nothing acts that largely maintain the status quo? After all, all reasonable analysts of force levels show that the “surge” cannot be sustained beyond January…there will be an inevitable draw down. So why allow the Republicans to paper over this as their willingness to “compromise” and paint them as “good guys” when they haven’t done a frickin’ thing.
You need to play hardball…and hold firm on not funding any more troop introductions UNTIL the Republicans or the WH agree to begin substantial drawdowns and a firm deadline for full termination of US military involvement in Iraq. One way you can do this is to support a RESOLUTION stating that the War Powers Resolution that authorized the use of force is now obsolete and has been for some time. Since that new Resolution is not a “law” it requires only a simple majority. And it deactivates the legal right for Bush to continue the war. It requires him to request a NEW authorizing resolution.
The original Resolution only required a 50% 1 vote. It was NOT something that could be vetoed since it was a statement of the “sense of Congress”.
Any such NEW resolution should have FIXED timetables. And no funding should be allocated UNTIL such a new authorizing resolution is passed.
THAT’s HOW you get us out of IRAQ without the “super-majority” you insist you need.
To help with the load on the servers due to the high number of comments, I will be closing comments on this thread.