Two Letters Two Worlds Apart

This diary is an open letter to the Democratic Congressmen from North Carolina. The first group made me very proud. The second group is incredibly disappointing. If I can fight my way through all of their web forms I will actually send these letters, but god forbid they make it easy to contact them.

The first three are Brad Miller, Mel Watt and David Price. These three men stood up to protect our troops, and I am immensely proud of them.

The other four are Mike McIntyre, Bob Etheridge, Heath Shuler and GK Butterfield.

I'm not one for writing long letters, but these are busy men.

Letter One, to the good guys:
Brad Miller
David Price
Mel Watt

Dear Sir,

Yesterday you voted to bring an end to the Iraq War. I want to thank you for your vote. The courage you showed today in standing up for our fighting men and women is admirable. You were given a free pass by the leadership to vote for a blank check, and instead you went with your conscience. I hope to one day be as strong as you were today.

To borrow a phrase from one of my least favorite people, "I will go to the gates of hell" to support you in the future. In 2006 we worked incredibly hard to give you the reins. Some of your colleagues have thoroughly disappointed us. But you proud few stood up for what is right, and I commend you. I would ask that you make every effort to end this war. Now that your fellow legislators have decided not to end this war with the "power of the purse" we are relying on you to end this another way. Thank you for your commitment to ending the war, and good luck in your efforts to convince your colleagues.

Thanks,
XXX

Letter Two, to the others:

GK Butterfield
Heath Shuler
Mike McIntyre
Bob Etheridge

Dear Sir,

Your vote to give George Bush a blank check is thoroughly disappointing to say the least. Election night 2006 was one of the proudest moments in my life. We had achieved the unthinkable, and won back power from the Republicans. After years of being called traitors for exercising our freedom we had the power. The power to make things right.

Today you abandoned that power. I gave you my trust and you have failed to follow through. In the future it will take significant steps by you to gain back my trust, and the trust of everyone who believes this war should be ended. You can begin earning that trust back by immediately making a full effort to end this war. If you aren't willing to end it with the "power of the purse" find another way to end it. Bring our men and women home, not for my sake, not for your sake. For their sake, and for the sake of their families. Please. We beg of you. Stop the war.

XXX

(Front-paged by Anglico)

Comments

More news

There was a recent letter from CBC members to Obama Hillary and Edwards begging them to come to the Fox debate.

(Why the CBC is having a debate on a channel that defines racism I dont know)

Well apparently Butterfield and Watt signed that letter. Im done with them for a long long time. What complete horseshit.

Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue

"Keep the Faith"

Butterfield fails X2

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

I have severed my

connection with DCCC and told them why. From this day forward, I support candidates who will do the business and the will of the people. Our military and our patience have been abused and misused for the last time. In one of my phone calls the other day, I politely (ever so politely) let the staffer know that the frustration and anger with the Senate was already boiling. The House shouldn't blow it. Alas, they did anyway.

A very colorful sergeant who was in charge of our data processing department, lo those many years back, had a description for the folks who voted to give Shrub YET ANOTHER blank check for Cheneyburton: they're the kind of folks who'd f* up a wet dream, get up from that and f* up a microwave dinner.

Frustrated sigh

"The most unamerican thing you can say is 'You can't say that'" - G. Keillor

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.
Mohandas Gandhi

I usually take things in stride...

... as I am into meditation, Buddhism and peace, love and harmony.

Today, I am still out-of-my-mind outraged about this! Total f___ anger.

Usually, I see nuance in voting for candidates, bbut I guess in reality, today, I am a single issue voter.

OUT OF IRAQ NOW! Not in September, not in 2009, but now - this afternoon will do.

--
Town Called Dobson - Daily Political Cartoon: Not all is red in rural America!

The expediency of going along....is a lot like gambling..

It feels good, but is addictive......and in the end, you always lose.

Congressmen GK Butterfield, Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre and Bob Etheridge have taken a road of expediency which, eventually, they will regret. They have continued the already long suffering of the American people, our American Military men and women and their families.

Their vote to support the President, in this case, has reinforced his own notion that he is not only right, but doing exactly what the American people want. You four congressman had the historic opportunity to speak loudly for the sake of peace, liberty, freedom and sanity, and you chose the expediency of falling in line.
In doing so you have not only betrayed your constituants, but your own principles and commitment to the citizens of North Carolina and the United States.

I am sure the pressure on you to vote the way you did was great, but the power of your conscience and the need to do the right thing for your country should have overcome that pressure. Shame on all of you.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Four got it all wrong, but the other three weren't right either.

The choice facing Democrats in the House yesterday was a stark one: Fund the war on Bush's terms or don't fund it and start the process of ending it. Yes, on the final vote, Price/Miller/Watt seemed to vote against funding, but --

As David Sirota pointed out yesterday morning, and the AP and Washington Post have affirmed today, the real vote yesterday was on a rule that allowed A BILL THE MAJORITY OF THE MAJORITY PARTY (including the Speaker) SAID THEY DID NOT SUPPORT to come to the floor anyway.

Read: http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/the_final_insult_dems_brag_to.html

On this critical rule vote, all three of our supposedly antiwar Democrats voted to clear the way for a pro-war bill to be passed by the Republican minority plus such avowedly pro-war Democrats as Etheridge, Shuler, McIntyre and apparently even Butterfield.

You know, at some point you either want this war to end or you don't.

The Democrats have the power to end it.

But they don't want it to end -- because they're afraid they'll be blamed for the colossal disaster that is ongoing and ongoing and ongoing ...

They're afraid.

It's sad.

Im not so sure

After his diary on kos talking about a secret trade deal that was published well over a day after the details had been released I am a lot more suspect about what he says.

Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue

"Keep the Faith"

Good point.

All the trianglulation and obfuscation is beyond depressing - it smacks of smoke screens designed to provide cover, no matter which direction a member decides to run.

Was it a quid pro quo? What did members get by agreeing to support the rule - other than the opportunity to vote for or against the underlying bills?

I totally agree with your comment:

But they don't want it to end -- because they're afraid they'll be blamed for the colossal disaster that is ongoing and ongoing and ongoing ...

They're afraid.

It's sad.

What's even sadder is that they don't even understand that they'll now be blamed either way.

Anglico asks, Was it a quid pro quo?

I'm sure it was -- the minimum wage got passed along with it, for example.

And our favorite Democrats got to say "I voted against the funding bill" when in fact their votes helped make the funding bill possible.

That's good politics.

But I'm thinking, this is not an occasion for good politics. It's time to stop this war.

kos has a take

on Webb's statement up at the front page. My response to all of it is that they had a chance to prove they were against the occupation. Most of them no longer have my trust on the subject. But, if they end this war ASAP then I will have even more trust in them than I had before, because they would have found a way to fully fund the troops AND bring them home.

If they dont do that, then everything they are saying is little more than pissing on me.

Draft Brad Miller-- NC Sen ActBlue

"Keep the Faith"

Read This and Think

please.

And please do remember we don't have the 2/3's to override a veto (yeah, yeah, I know - symbolism and all that)

"Of more than 100 requests from deployed Marine units between February 2006 and February 2007, less than 10 percent have been fulfilled..."

In this bill, money to contractors has been restricted and money to troops has been emphasized.

I can't speak to the reasons all of them voted like they did because I didn't speak to all of them.

But I do urge you all to call and ask - WHY? In God's name, WHY did you vote for this?

You might be surprised; you might be disgusted but after interacting with you all for this long, I know 99% of you are reasonable people - and - get your rotten fruit ready -

even a d.a. (R) deserves a chance to face his accusers.

>eom

I like to think I'm

I like to think I'm reasonable. And troop needs, while the troops are still in Iraq, should be met, I agree.

But I can't agree that this argues for passing a blank-check bill because we don't have the 2/3's needed to override.

No prior blank-check bill, and there have been many, has resulted in troop needs being met, apparently. And I seriously doubt that this one will either, regardless of any language to that effect that the Democrats say is going to magically make the Bushies stand up and do right.

If a solid Democratic funding bill had been passed and then vetoed, and funding for the war actually started to run out (and that's a long way from happening, with or without troop needs), then troops would have to be withdrawn. Or else a real compromise would need to be negotiated that would call for troops to be withdrawn.

Isn't that what we want, the troops to be withdrawn? How does a bill paying to keep them there, without any exit strategy whatsoever, advance that goal?

Unfortunately, however, caving in to Bush, and then blaming it on troop needs, is par for the course for at least some of our armchair warrior-reps.

If It Were Up to Me

"The only thing I'm funding is airplanes. Troop transport airplanes to bring them home - right now."

But it isn't up to me. But I made sure someone heard what I had to say. And I listened. And I understood.

I didn't say I agreed but I did understand. All I can say is

ASK.

Don't stop til you get an answer. Don't settle for boloney - we're out of mustard.

And while you're at it - weigh in.

The fact that our troops don't have what they need

speaks volumes about their command. And I'm talking about the commander in chief - the buck-stopper, the deciderer, the hostage-taker, the ... oh, you know. The one who has never been there, done that, but insists on sending other people's children there to do that, without what they need to get it done.

It should not distract us from that fact that he LIED to get them there, and he LIES to keep them there. It is disgusting.

_____________
The Den
It's your democracy; use it.

I lost a long,

laborious, and probably extremely boring comment when I tried to post a few minutes ago, so (luckily for you) I will summarize:

The passage of this bill was unfortunate, but the real test is coming later this year. From what I've been hearing (and reading), the 2008 Defense Authorization request/bill/act is going to be a monster, somewhere north of 700 billion. This will begin a substantial increase in active duty troop levels (among other things).

Considering the sizable increase in the Supplemental and this looming behemoth of a bill (even if it's trimmed a little), the new Democrat majority Congress could be responsible for giving the Bush War Machine more money than the previous Republican-controlled Congresses.

This needs to be addressed now, before the DOD submits its near 3/4 trillion wish list. They need to be assured that they will get even less than last (this) year, so they can rearrange their proirities.

I know there's an election looming, and many of you are pleased with Bush's (etal) extremely low approval ratings. But they're not real damn high for Dems either, and if this bill makes it through anywhere near the proposed level, next year's election could be a heartbreaker.

So much for a summary. :)

Thanks for your persistence

I always copy my comments or posts right before I hit "submit." I know it's a pain, but I've learned the hard way that it's worth the 3 seconds it takes.

I usually do copy them,

but my stewpit computer waits for me to have a brain-fart and forget to do it, and then it laughs while I send my painstaking work into the abyss. I'm definitely saving this one, since it exposes my Corporate-controlled hardware as the idea-stifling monster that it is. :(

Are you using Internet Explorer

as your web browser? Try Firefox. In IE you get logged out and lose things. I haven't had it happen yet in Firefox or Safari.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Maybe it's time to de-fund the Congress

Time for civil disobedience. If enough people quit paying their taxes at the same time would that get their attention?

Nah... they'd just borrow more from China.