Town Hall Meeting on the War in Iraq
Last night, a so-called Town Hall meeting was held in my neighborhood in Brooklyn. This was organized by the Central Brooklyn Independant Democrats, one of various Democratic party organizations in the area. Three U.S. Congressional Representatives from New York City were there; Yvette Clark, Jerrold Nadler, and Anthony Weiner, along with other state and local politicians, even the former U.S. Congressman from the district, Major Owens.
Each politician was allowed to say a few words about the war in Iraq and what could possibly be done to stop it and pull out U.S. troops. Then, the Congressmen took questions from the audience. Despite a few outbursts of angry boos and catcalls, the event remained fairly civilized, and the politicians were allowed to speak their minds and answer the questions without disruption.
I went into the meeting with an unbiased (I'd like to think) attitude, and I came away with the following impressions...
1.) Despite having a majority in the House and Senate, the Democrats are still having trouble getting what they want. Furthermore, they still feel like they have a tenuous hold on that majority.
Roughly, the Democrats have 230 members in Congress, out of 415. However, they cannot count on support from at least 30 of them. That leaves about 200; less than a majority. Of those, not even all of them oppose the war in Iraq or are committed to ending it. Though the Democrats did manage to get a Bill to the president, but it was woefully watered down, and then it was vetoed, and they did not end up overriding the veto.
What they have suceeded in doing is getting about 90 Democrats to sign a petition assuring they will not vote yes on any Bill that includes more funding for the war. It is not exactly a pull-out from Iraq, but it is a start.
The Democratic "revolution" in Congress still has yet to bear out any serious change but it has slowed the advance of a purely Republican Conservative agenda. Democratic Congressmen who were elected last November by promising to stop the Iraq war have softened their stances on that cause, or have turned their backs on it altogether. However, next November, we are getting a new president, and we are getting a new class of Congressmen. If the Democrats can win even more seats, and the presidency, there is the feeling that some true change is possible. Meanwhile, next April appears to be the soonest we can hope for a serious drawn-down of troops.
2.) Impeachment of Bush or Cheney is not going to happen.
Among the attendees at last night's event, there was a large contingent who favored the impeachement of President Bush and V.P. Cheney. Almost every other question from the audience had something to do with impeachment. Congressmen Weiner and Nadler were against it, Congresswoman Clark was in favor of impeaching Cheney, even signed a Bill to that effect.
Weiner's argument was basically that if the Dems move forward with impeachment proceedings, they would lose the ability to get any support for any other items of their agenda; healthcare, education, etc. Impeachment would hopelessly divide the Congress and the country, he said. Perhaps the best counterpoint to this arguement was a question from the audience; "Well, what is it you're doing that is so important that impeachment would disrupt it?"
Nadler was also against impeachment however, he was the most passionate about the idea that the current administration has violated the law in several ways, notabley through its wire-tapping program, treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and generally abusing the claim of "National Security." Nadler believes therefore, that prosecution is the best way to attack these abuses. He noted that never in the history of the U.S. has a president been taken out of office through impeachment.
In other words, those who are hoping for impeachment should not hold their collective breath. If some of the most staunch, Blue Democrats do no think it is possible, its not going to happen. There is however, some hope that a legitimate legal case can be brought against the administration at some point, which would be more effective than impeachment. However, this is still not likely before next November.
My Own Personal Conclusions:
1.) The legislative process is still "unwieldy and cumbersome" (as it was intended to be). Any major change takes a long, long time and a lot of compromise. Over the course of the past 6-7 years however, the power of the executive branch has grown out of proportion to the legislative branch into a dangerous size. When the president can act without the approval or consent of Congress, we are in serious trouble. It appears that is just what is happening. The Dems lodged a major blow by getting a majority in Congress, but if they want to get anything done, what they need is a president, and a president with the same overriding and unmitigated gall as George W. Bush. But that will only further strengthen the power of the executive branch, and Congress will eventually become obsolete...just a bunch of people arguing at each other in a teapot while the world marches on around them.
What needs to be done NOW--and by what means I do not know--is too remove some of the power of the executive branch and re-balance the goverment. But this needs to be done BY LAW, so that the president can go to JAIL if he breaks these laws. If future presidents can send the U.S. to war unchecked, spy on U.S. citizens without warrants, and act without approval by the legislators, then we have LOST CONTROL and will be in exactly the kind of situation our founders dreaded and warned us against.
As Weiner said last night [paraphrase]: if another Republican president is elected next November, the Republicans will be uncontrollable, they will take the executive powers as Bush has illegal expanded them, and they will run roughshod over the government and over the country. In short, it could be a nightmare.
2.) The Republicans still hold the cards, and as long as they do, the Democrats are going to be desperate for time, desperate for support, desperate for ideas. In short, they need to get their backs out from against the wall.
The Dems have a tenuous majority in Congress that could disappear next November, even if we get a Democrat as the next president. The Democratic revolution is incomplete, and needs further strengthening next year. This is an absolute and urgent need. If they can get the president, and the Congress, perhaps they can move into a more active, rather than re-active role. If they do not, it is going to mean more years of compromise and half measures.
Each politician was allowed to say a few words about the war in Iraq and what could possibly be done to stop it and pull out U.S. troops. Then, the Congressmen took questions from the audience. Despite a few outbursts of angry boos and catcalls, the event remained fairly civilized, and the politicians were allowed to speak their minds and answer the questions without disruption.
I went into the meeting with an unbiased (I'd like to think) attitude, and I came away with the following impressions...
1.) Despite having a majority in the House and Senate, the Democrats are still having trouble getting what they want. Furthermore, they still feel like they have a tenuous hold on that majority.
Roughly, the Democrats have 230 members in Congress, out of 415. However, they cannot count on support from at least 30 of them. That leaves about 200; less than a majority. Of those, not even all of them oppose the war in Iraq or are committed to ending it. Though the Democrats did manage to get a Bill to the president, but it was woefully watered down, and then it was vetoed, and they did not end up overriding the veto.
What they have suceeded in doing is getting about 90 Democrats to sign a petition assuring they will not vote yes on any Bill that includes more funding for the war. It is not exactly a pull-out from Iraq, but it is a start.
The Democratic "revolution" in Congress still has yet to bear out any serious change but it has slowed the advance of a purely Republican Conservative agenda. Democratic Congressmen who were elected last November by promising to stop the Iraq war have softened their stances on that cause, or have turned their backs on it altogether. However, next November, we are getting a new president, and we are getting a new class of Congressmen. If the Democrats can win even more seats, and the presidency, there is the feeling that some true change is possible. Meanwhile, next April appears to be the soonest we can hope for a serious drawn-down of troops.
2.) Impeachment of Bush or Cheney is not going to happen.
Among the attendees at last night's event, there was a large contingent who favored the impeachement of President Bush and V.P. Cheney. Almost every other question from the audience had something to do with impeachment. Congressmen Weiner and Nadler were against it, Congresswoman Clark was in favor of impeaching Cheney, even signed a Bill to that effect.
Weiner's argument was basically that if the Dems move forward with impeachment proceedings, they would lose the ability to get any support for any other items of their agenda; healthcare, education, etc. Impeachment would hopelessly divide the Congress and the country, he said. Perhaps the best counterpoint to this arguement was a question from the audience; "Well, what is it you're doing that is so important that impeachment would disrupt it?"
Nadler was also against impeachment however, he was the most passionate about the idea that the current administration has violated the law in several ways, notabley through its wire-tapping program, treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and generally abusing the claim of "National Security." Nadler believes therefore, that prosecution is the best way to attack these abuses. He noted that never in the history of the U.S. has a president been taken out of office through impeachment.
In other words, those who are hoping for impeachment should not hold their collective breath. If some of the most staunch, Blue Democrats do no think it is possible, its not going to happen. There is however, some hope that a legitimate legal case can be brought against the administration at some point, which would be more effective than impeachment. However, this is still not likely before next November.
My Own Personal Conclusions:
1.) The legislative process is still "unwieldy and cumbersome" (as it was intended to be). Any major change takes a long, long time and a lot of compromise. Over the course of the past 6-7 years however, the power of the executive branch has grown out of proportion to the legislative branch into a dangerous size. When the president can act without the approval or consent of Congress, we are in serious trouble. It appears that is just what is happening. The Dems lodged a major blow by getting a majority in Congress, but if they want to get anything done, what they need is a president, and a president with the same overriding and unmitigated gall as George W. Bush. But that will only further strengthen the power of the executive branch, and Congress will eventually become obsolete...just a bunch of people arguing at each other in a teapot while the world marches on around them.
What needs to be done NOW--and by what means I do not know--is too remove some of the power of the executive branch and re-balance the goverment. But this needs to be done BY LAW, so that the president can go to JAIL if he breaks these laws. If future presidents can send the U.S. to war unchecked, spy on U.S. citizens without warrants, and act without approval by the legislators, then we have LOST CONTROL and will be in exactly the kind of situation our founders dreaded and warned us against.
As Weiner said last night [paraphrase]: if another Republican president is elected next November, the Republicans will be uncontrollable, they will take the executive powers as Bush has illegal expanded them, and they will run roughshod over the government and over the country. In short, it could be a nightmare.
2.) The Republicans still hold the cards, and as long as they do, the Democrats are going to be desperate for time, desperate for support, desperate for ideas. In short, they need to get their backs out from against the wall.
The Dems have a tenuous majority in Congress that could disappear next November, even if we get a Democrat as the next president. The Democratic revolution is incomplete, and needs further strengthening next year. This is an absolute and urgent need. If they can get the president, and the Congress, perhaps they can move into a more active, rather than re-active role. If they do not, it is going to mean more years of compromise and half measures.
Comments