Washblog

In our conversation, Senator Murray's press representative would speak only off the record, as the sole person authorized to speak was unavailable.  But he advised me to tune into C-Span to hear Senator Murray's speech denouncing the Senate Republicans for blocking the Warner resolution.  A press release that probably repeats much of the content in that speech just went up on Senator Murray's site:  Senator Murray Speaks Out. [Note, 3:22 PM 2/6: I just went in to verify the link and this content has been removed; maybe it will reappear soon!]

Well, Senator Murray, a partisan denunciation for the blocking a meaningless resolution is not good enough.  In fact,it looks to me like political cover for your failure to take meaningful action.  

The Warner resolution was opposed by Democratic Senators Russ Feingold (WI) and Chris Dodd (CT) because it was ineffectual. David Sirota points out in an Op-Ed piece of today that allowing a toothless anti-Iraq war resolution to pass with bi-partisan support makes no difference in the outcome of the war but gives electoral advantage to the Republicans who vote for it.  This recording of David Sirota's recent 3-minute interview with Russ Feingold is a must-hear:  [mp3],   [Windows].  Feingold blames the Democrats' failure in Iraq on their willingness to heed the advice of consultants. I've transcribed Feingold's quotes from this recording; they're at the end of this post.

This afternoon, I spoke with Erin Alexander of Seattle Occupation Project.  She told me that the Seattle peace community has long been trying to engage with Senator Murray.  I asked Erin to grade the Senator on the war.  She said, personally, she'd give her an "F".  In her experience, Murray has been non-responsive to the peace community from the beginning.  Despite numerous requests and attempts to engage her she's refused to meet or even talk with them -- and she refused to hold a Town Hall meeting on the war proposed by Stand Up Seattle last year.  

Today, activists from the broad coalition of peace groups that make up the Seattle Occupation Project, are stationed inside and outside Senator Murray's office in Seattle, trying to get her to pledge a vote against Bush's supplemental to the budget.  They will do the same with Representative McDermott and Senator Cantwell.

We are not seeing the real story on the Warner-Levin resolution in the traditional news.  Nor do we get it from the Democratic Party leadership, as Howard Dean's statement today shows.  MoveOn's playing the game, too.  From an email I received today:

Dear MoveOn member,   It's outrageous.  After saying they wanted to join Democrats, Senate Republicans now are filibustering the anti-escalation resolution--dodging the first vote on the war since the election. They know the American people are fed up.  And they know the president is wrong.  But they still won't take a stand.  We're not going to let them hide.

Gee, thanks MoveOn.  That's really brave of you.  

Here's the transcription of the Sirota interview with Senator Feingold, linked to above:

Sirota: Asks: if conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson can use political brinksmanship in support of bad policy, can progressives help Senators like him and Chris Todd use brinksmanship in support of good policy?

Feingold: I wish the problem was confined to the Ben Nelsons of the world.  I think that's something we could handle.  It's not that's small.   What it is--is a whole lot of Democrats, you might call them middle-of-road Democrats, liberal Democrats.  Even people who voted against the war, who refuse to pull the trigger, who refuse to do what has to be done here.  It's an historical tragedy, that good people who know better are trying to take the easy way out.

And so it requires brinksmanship.  It requires me to take the kind of steps I've taken, which is not fun.  It is difficult to say these things.  Because I admire my colleagues, I like them, I respect them.  But I simply can't go home every week and know that Wisconsin men and women are going to die for no good purpose at this point, simply because politicians want to play it safe.  There comes a point where it's against my conscience to put up with that.  So I am for as tough an approach as is necessary to end this war.

Sirota: Asks: so we're dealing with middle-of-the-roaders ...

Feingold:  I think it's more than that.  What I think is happening is that the Washington consultants, especially those who were part of the previous Democratic administration, come into a room with leadership and tell them, look, if you propose a timeline, or if you try to cut off the funding, the Republicans will tear you apart.  So I think it comes from the inside.  I think it comes from the Washington inside crowd that sets the parameters of this debate.

This Washington inside crowd was for this war.  And they can't figure out how to get out of this situation and if they sort of admit that we've just got to get out of there, then there's egg all over their faces.  So they're trying to finesse this.  So this assumption that somehow it's Democratic Senators saying, you know this is a tough vote for me.  I think it's coming from the power structure in Washington that's trying to figure out how to explain how they made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of this country.  And that's why you got to go right at them.  The people of this country want this over.  Washington consultants supported this.  So it's us versus them on this issue.