Aftermath of the Conor Lamb election

I wrote prior to Tuesday's special election in Pennsylvania about how establishment Democrats could be expected to draw the "lesson" from either a win or a loss there along the lines of, well, what corporate Democrats always want: candidates beholden to wealthy donors and who hold "Blue Dog" (i.e., Republcican) positions on guns proliferation, abortion rights, the military budget, and corporate deregulation.

One way to look at this is to use a metaphor along these lines: the progressive Dems are the left/center left party, corporate Dems are the conservative party, and the Republicans are the raging reactionary Trump party.

That's only a metaphor, though, because the American electoral system with winner-takes-all districts creates a very strong incentive for a two-party system, and that's what we have. Despite the dissonance within the Republican Party over Trump's erratic foreign policy style and his protectionist rhetoric, there is remarkable uniformity over major issues like the military budget, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest, and reckless disregard for international agreements and treaty commitments.

It's worth stressing here that people generally assume that Barack Obama was a "left" Democrat. Republicans, of course, generally profess to see no difference between Democrats, Bolsheviks, and tribes of cannibals in a Tarzan movie. But Obama also repeatedly called for cuts to Social Security and Medicare as part of a bipartisan "Grand Bargain" that he apparently wanted intensely. So Conor Lamb in his Pennsylvania race was to the left of Obama on Social Security and Medicare.

The two wings of the Democratic Party have more substantive differences. I'd have to bracket military policy here, though. The Democrats have spent so long trying to reassure everyone they are "tough on defense" that few of them are willing to criticize even a world-historical boondoggle like the "missile defense" corporate-welfare program. They mostly aren't willing to assert Congressional war powers under the Constitution in a meaningful way. There are exceptions. Sanders, Lee and Murphy Introduce Yemen War Powers Resolution 02/28/2018:

And even there, only one of those three Senators is elected as a Democrat! Although, of course, Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee - who represents my Congressional district - has obviously been a leader in this regard, challenging bad war policies and criticizing intelligence agency abuses:

Gina Haspel’s role overseeing the Bush Administration’s illegal torture program should disqualify her from leading the CIA. At a minimum, our CIA Director should respect human rights & international law. https://t.co/JyfqAbMCAe

— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) March 13, 2018

Tillerson was ineffective at State but Pompeo could be even worse. I served with him in the House – he denies the reality of climate change, opposes the Iran Deal & supports regime change in #NorthKorea. We need an experienced diplomat at State, not a rubber stamp for Pres Trump. https://t.co/ixIDag5XCd

— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) March 13, 2018

But Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin, even Diane Feinstein are generally firmly in the Bipartisan consensus in favor of constantly supporting the military-industrial complex and pretty much anything the Intelligence Community wants to do.

Here is the corporate Democratic Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Tom Perez on the Conor Lamb election, DNC Chair: 'Republicans Are Understandably Quaking In Their Boots' Velshi & Ruhle/MSNBC. He gives the safe, poll-tested answers in this interview withStephanie Ruhle, the kind that are guaranteed to make the listeners eyes glaze over in 60 seconds time:

Perez says that Lamb was "talking about" various issues including "pension security." Is it really too much to expect the DNC chair to uses a moment like that to say that Lamb campaigned against the cuts that Republicans will make to Social Security and Medicare unless we stop them? Apparently, it would be. But he rolled along with Ruhle in chatting about the horse race. Also, Tom, it probably not the best choice to say that African-American voters in Doug Jones' Alabama Senate race were the "linchpin" of the Democrats' success. I'm just sayin'.

Ruhle also picks up the Republican/corporate Dem theme that ludicrously says that Conor Lamb ran as a Republican. Ed Kilgore takes down the Republican spin in No Clear Winner Yet in Pennsylvania Special Election, But the GOP Is the Clear Loser New York 03/14/2018:

Yes, this is a special election; some might imagine that in a regular election, such as the one in November, more Republican voters will show up. The problem with that hypothesis is that turnout today was at full midterm levels. There’s no reason to think turnout patterns in November will be more favorable for the GOP, particularly given the massive Trump administration attention that this district got during this contest.

Another Republican rationalization we have already heard from the Washington Examiner’s Salena Zito is that Conor Lamb is not a real Democrat (because he was nominated by a convention and didn’t have to win the votes of left-bent primary voters), and thus his performance does not show how real Democrats will do in November. But, by any standard, Saccone is a real Republican who ran more than ten points behind the normal GOP vote in PA-18. And Lamb was lifted to parity with Saccone by the very same labor movement — battered and diminished as it is — that will be fighting for Democrats in swing districts all over the country. Dismiss labor, dismiss energized rank-and-file Democrats, and dismiss the ability of the Donkey Party to find suitable candidates like Lamb, and you’re well on the way to underestimating the likelihood of a Democratic wave in November. [my emphasis]

Others suggested better lessons for the Democrats to draw from the experience:

"Organized labor built western Pennsylvania."
This is a nice touch from young Mr. Lamb.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) March 14, 2018

Here’s the lesson Dems in blue collar America should take from @ConorLambPA: run with labor and against national party/Pelosi. @PHP2018 #bluewave

— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) March 14, 2018

Pierce expounded on the implications in his distinctive style (Conor Lamb's Victory Matters, and Paul Ryan Should Be Scared Esquire Politics Blog 03/14/2018):

There will be some attempt now to minimize what the voters in that district did on Tuesday night. Rick Saccone was a dullard of a candidate. (True.) Conor Lamb is personally going to run Nancy Pelosi out of national politics, so he’s not really a Democratic candidate. (Please to be giving me a break.) It’s a long way until November and Things Can Still Happen. (This theory depends vitally on the president* suddenly becoming Up To The Job. Yeah, right.) This is whistling very loudly past a very large graveyard. This was a Republican district. It was built to be a Republican district in perpetuity, which is why its days are numbered right now.

In the latter days of the campaign, the Republicans abandoned their economic pitch that was based on the president*’s ability to convince congressional Republicans to pass a massive plutocrat’s wet dream of a tax cut. This was supposed to be the magic bullet in this election. Instead, Saccone decided to let the traditional culture-war boogeypersons out of the closet.

On Monday, for example, Conor Lamb was a wild-eyed "libtard" who was going to let undocumented immigrant doctors perform abortions on your 10-year-old daughter in the middle of a mass gay wedding in Greene County. On Wednesday, according to those same Republicans, Conor Lamb was basically Mark Meadows in Democratic drag. Are the Republicans pretty well and truly fcked up as a party right now? Signs point to “Yes.”

More on Babara Lee's meeting on the Iraq War

A few additional thoughts from the Barbara Lee Townhall meeting on the Iraq War.

I learned a new phrase, at least one new to me: "street heat", referring to pressure from public opinion and from activists in particular. "Street" hear means people, voters, constituents, in much the way the English phrases "street cred" or "Arab street" use the word.

Barbara Lee and Daniel Ellsberg both emphasized how important it is that Congress also take a stand against the Cheney-Bush administration launching a preventive war against Iran. In the military appropriations bill that the House passed last week with its anti-Iraq War provisions, a specific prohibition against using funds to launch a war on Iran without Congressional approval was removed with the agreement of the Democratic leadership, a decision on their part that Ellsberg called "execrable".

But he also seemed to think that getting a veto-proof (two-thirds) vote for a measure banning an attack on Iran without Congressional approval was a feasible goal already. He didn't really elaborate on that, but his assumption seemed to be that there is substantial sentiment among Republicans for such an action. I haven't seen it yet.

Barbara Lee's official Web site has quite a bit of information on her positions on the Iraq War. For instance, her Statement on the Passage of the Iraq Accountability Act of 03/23/07, with video:

As we begin the fifth year of the occupation of Iraq, it is clear that the President has staked his legacy on an unnecessary war that his administration has botched at every turn. By refusing to take responsibility for their failed policy in Iraq, the administration has effectively forced Congress to intervene to bring it to a responsible end.

Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, Jim Clyburn and the Democratic leadership deserve credit for recognizing this and for doing something that the Republican Congress refused to do for the last four years, namely to confront the Bush administration over their failed policy in Iraq and to commit to bringing that policy to a responsible end. That is a very important step.

As someone who opposed this war from the beginning, I have voted against every single penny for this war and found myself today in the difficult position of having to choose between voting against funding for the war or for establishing timelines to end it.

While as a matter of conscience I cast my vote against the funding, I hope that this passage of this bill marks the beginning of the end of the Iraq war, but the real fight still lies ahead. Congress will continue to have to confront the issue of this war and occupation, and I am committed to continuing to push to fully fund the safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq at the earliest practicable date and for timelines for withdrawal that are backed up by the appropriations power that the Constitution grants to Congress. (my emphasis)

I guess I can say on this issue, "Barbara Lee speaks for me" in more than one sense, since she's my Congressional Representative and I've voted for her several times now. Someone asked in the meeting is she ever plans on running for President. She replied, "I'm not going to answer that question." Then she added with a grin, "But thanks for the question".

Two of the antiwar measures which are top priorities for her right now include:

HR508 (Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007):

Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States--

(1) to end the occupation of Iraq on the basis of the findings specified in section 101;

(2) to accelerate the training and equipping of the military and security forces of the Government of Iraq;

(3) to pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy;

(4) to help preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq as a nation state;

(5) to take all appropriate measures to account for any missing members of the United States Armed Forces or United States citizens in Iraq; and

(6) to turn over all internal security activities and military operations in Iraq to the elected Government of Iraq not later than the end of the six-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

HR 770 (Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act):

To prohibit the use of funds to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat, in accordance with international law and constitutional and statutory requirements for congressional authorization.

I wasn't able to locate the text of these bills on her Web site. You can go to the search page for www.Thomas.gov and search for the bill with HR specified before the number and see the full text.

It's always interesting to me to see the coverage in the newspapers of local stories on events at which I was present, e.g., Sean Penn, Rep. Lee rally against Iraq war by Carolyn Jones and Cecilia M. Vega San Francisco Chronicle 03/25/07; Actor joins anti-war gathering: Sean Penn takes part in rally against Iraq conflict held in Oakland by William Brand and Erik Nelson Oakland Tribune 03/25/2007.

The Chronicle print edition featured the first of the photo that appears at the upper left of the one on the Web version, the one that has Sean Penn looking like Leon Trotsky rallying the masses. The one of him and Barbara Lee bowing their heads and observing a moment of silence for those who have lost their lives in the Iraq War was more characteristic of the mood of the meeting and of Sean Penn's speech.

Neither Penn nor Rep. Barbara Lee, the Oakland Democrat who has opposed the war since before it began four years ago, offered much in the way of specifics for ending the conflict, and they were largely preaching to the choir. The enthusiastic and occasionally boisterous crowd of 800 or so crammed into the Grand Lake Theater wildly cheered as Penn excoriated President Bush.

"You and your smarmy pundits - and the smarmy pundits you have in your pocket - can take your war and shove it," Penn said. "Let's unite not only in stopping this war, but in holding this administration accountable."

Actually, I wouldn't say the crowd ever "wildly cheered", although there were a number of standing ovations, the most enthusiastic one probably being when Daniel Ellsberg took the stage. The crowd was enthusiastic. But if Jones and Vega thought what they heard yesterday was wild cheering, I wonder what they would make of the home crowd at an Oakland Raiders game!

I think they got this part right:

Penn reiterated a point often made by opponents of the war when he said he supports the troops but opposes the war.

"Let's make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families," he said. "The money that's spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa and care for our veterans. Iraq is not our toilet. It's a country of human beings whose lives that were once oppressed by Saddam are now in 'Dante's Inferno.' "

I didn't take detailed notes in the meeting. But I'm pretty sure they abridged this quote:

"We can't afford to spend one more dime or lose one more American or Iraqi life on this illegal and unwinnable war," Lee told the crowd.

As I recall, she said at that point that the war was "illegal, immoral, unwinnable" and something to the effect of having been started based on lies, as I recall.

Their report on the march and rally afterward includes this "My Name Is Liza Kavelage" moment:

"The only thing this government needs is for the people to be silent and then they can do whatever they want," said Joan MacIntyre, a 74-year-old great-grandmother from Oakland.

MacIntyre, like many who attended Saturday's events, was no stranger to war protests. She has marched in numerous rallies since the Iraq war started in March 2003 and was arrested Monday during a San Francisco protest. It was her 41st arrest, she boasted proudly.

"At least I can hold my head up and say that I tried," she said.

Brand and Nelson give a longer quote from Sean Penn:

"You have broken our country; you have broken our hearts. The needless blood on your hands ... is drowning the freedom, the security and the dream that America might have been, once healed up from Sept. 11, 2001," Penn said.

"But now we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory, if our belief is that we should stop this war today. We cower as you point your fingers telling us to support our troops — well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket — those who bathe in the moisture of your blood-soaked underwear can take that noise and shove it, because we will be snowed no more."

Penn, who lives in Marin County, told the audience, "Let's fight this president and put him in f—ing jail."

Not to nitpick, but I did write down that last sentence seconds later, because I wanted to use it in the blog post I made yesterday. And I got it as, "Let's show the world we can fire this administration and put them in [Cheney]ing jail!"

They estimated the crowd at 600. I couldn't really argue with either of their number or the Chronicle's, because I'm frankly terrible at estimating the size of a crowd that I'm part of. The Chron's reporters also apparently left before Daniel Ellsberg showed up. Brand and Nelson write:

Another speaker at the Grand Lake was Daniel Ellsberg, a longtime Kensington resident, who won fame when, in 1971, he leaked a top secret study of the Vietnam War showing the missteps and deception of the American government. Ellsberg, whom Lee called to the podium from the audience, suggested the Democratic majority launch an investigation of Bush misconduct in the war leading to a motion for impeachment.

"Congress cannot let these two years ago pass without defining what Bush, (Vice President Dick) Cheney and others have done as high crimes and misdemeanors," Ellsberg said to a burst of applause from the highly partisan audience.

They also reported this from the rally afterward:

Alan Howe, 55, rode his bicycle to the demonstration to vent his frustration with his fellow evangelical Christians, including Bush, who have supported the war.

"He says he's a brother in faith, but I don't see how he's applying that," said Howe, a former Baptist pastor who is now a senior librarian at the Oakland Public Library.

But Howe wasn't always anti-war. He said he was a hawkish conservative on the Vietnam War until shortly after the secret U.S. invasion of Cambodia in 1970. He attended a similar rally in Santa Barbara, where he was a student at the Christian-oriented Westmont College. "I remember hearing an Episcopal priest speak and thinking, if half of what he's saying is true, I can't support the war."

Tags: antiwar movement, barbara lee, daniel ellsberg, hr508, hr770, iraq war, sean penn

Town meeting on the Iraq War - March 24

Antiwar leaflet, Oakland Center for Peace and Justice March 2007

As a resident of California's 9th Congressional district, my Congressional Representative is Barbara Lee, I'm proud to say. She was in the district for a constituent meeting on March 24, a meeting focused on the Iraq War and billed as a "Townhall on Iraq". It was held in the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, an independent theater whose owner often features liberal political slogans on his marquee along with the movie titles.

Barbara Lee spoke, of course, and there were also presentations by several guest speakers: Sean Penn, the actor, antiwar activist (and Madonna's ex); Shawn McNeil, an Iraq War Marine veteran and activist with Veterans Against the Iraq War; Stephanie Martinez, a 16-year-old high school student in Oakland who volunteers for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Center; Betty Cox, a painter and teacher who has been active supporting war resister Lt. Aaron Watada; and, Martha Winnacker of Military Families Speak Out, whose son fought in Iraq as a Marine.

Late in the two-hour meeting (which started late so was really more like 1 1/2 hours), the moderator recognized Daniel Ellsberg, who had just come in and sat down in the audience. So he was invited to come up and speak, as well.

Not surprisingly, a lot of the discussion was about last week antiwar vote in the House. Barbara is one of the leaders of the 70-member House Out of Iraq Caucus, and she and five other caucus members voted against the Pelosi compromise that passed Friday. She explained that she has always voted against any funding bill that would provide funds to continue the Iraq War.

But she and other speakers were careful to point out that Friday's antiwar vote was a important moment for the antiwar movement, not least because it represented a recognition by the House major of the need for some kind of timelines for withdrawal. There was some criticism of the House Democratic leadership for not allowing a vote on Barbara's proposal for full US troop withdrawal by the end of 2007. But Winnancker and Ellsberg both praised her for encouraging enough members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to vote for the Pelosi measure to get it passed in the House.

I was impressed with the level of seriousness among the speakers and from Barbara herself about getting the US out of the Iraq War as soon as possible. And also by the realistic and practical attitude about the House vote last week. Ellsberg spoke mostly about that vote and said that he would have found Barbara's position on that vote very difficult, but he emphasized that the measure that was passed was important in putting the House on the record against continuing the war. And that it was definitely better than the Bush plan of continuing the war for "50 more years".

But he also stressed that the position of the Out of Iraq Caucus is substantively different than the Pelosi bill that did pass, not just because the compromise's timeline extends to 2008. The Pelosi compromise included various exceptions to the troop pullout, like "support" troops, for example.

Everyone also recognized that Bush was veto this particular bill and no one was really predicting what would happen in the next round. First, the Senate has to act and then it goes to a conference committee to be put into final form. Ellsberg noted that, realistically, some funding bill would pass without the pullout timelines included.

There were several impeachment activists in the audience who periodically help up "Impeach" signs. Barbara noted at the end that Rep. Dennis Kucinich has "opened a discussion" on impeachment, implying that she was very open to the notion. Ellsberg made a strong point that the Congress needed to start an impeachment investigation. He said it was important for Congress to go on record before the end of this administration that the administration's actions should be considered "high crimes and misdemeanors", the Constitutional standard for impeachment of the President.

Sean Penn was also emphatic about the need to recognize the criminal nature of the administration's actions in the Iraq War. He mentioned the media blathering on the occasion of Gerald Ford's death about how his pardon of Nixon was so great for national healing. But, he asked, when we look at today's situation, is it really such a good thing that the deterrent effect of the law was blocked in Nixon's case?

He also said, "Let's show the world we can fire this administration and put them in [Cheney]ing jail!" That was quite an applause line, and Barbara herself clearly appreciated it.

Barbara ended the meeting with an impassioned plea for adequate health care for veterans.

There was a march afterward to the Oakland City Hall that I didn't attend. Unfortunately, that wasn't as well publicized as the constituent meeting itself. More speeches and artistic performances were planned at City Hall.

Antiwar leaflet, Oakland Center for Peace and Justice March 2007

Tags: antiwar movement, barbara lee, daniel ellsberg, iraq war, sean penn