Chicken Doves
Feb 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm by Susie
Matt Taibbi on why the Democrats aren’t going to do a thing to end the war:
Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that “anti-war activism” became synonymous with “electing Democrats.” Capitalizing on America’s desire to end the war, they hijacked the anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks. Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for the Democrats — one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans.
This supposedly grass-roots “anti-war coalition” met regularly on K Street, the very capital of top-down Beltway politics. At the forefront of the groups are Thomas Matzzie and Brad Woodhouse of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq, the leader of the anti-war lobby. Along with other K Street crusaders, the two have received iconic treatment from The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which depicted the anti-war warriors as young idealist-progressives in shirtsleeves, riding a mirthful spirit into political combat — changing the world is fun!
But what exactly are these young idealists campaigning for? At its most recent meeting, the group eerily echoed the Reid-Pelosi “squeezed for time” mantra: Retreat from any attempt to end the war and focus on electing Democrats. “There was a lot of agreement that we can draw distinctions between anti-war Democrats and pro-war Republicans,” a spokeswoman for Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq announced.
What the Post and the Times failed to note is that much of the anti-war group’s leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes — whose partners, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, served as staffers for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). In addition, these anti-war leaders continue to consult for many of the same U.S. senators whom they need to pressure in order to end the war. This is the kind of conflict of interest that would normally be an embarrassment in the activist community.
Oh, and did I mention that Steve Hilebrand is a top Obama advisor whose firm runs his field organization and communications strategy?
Worst of all is the case of Woodhouse, who came to Hildebrand Tewes after years of working as the chief mouthpiece for the DSCC, where he campaigned actively to re-elect Democratic senators who supported the Iraq War in the first place. Anyone bothering to look — and clearly the Post and the Times did not before penning their ardent bios of Woodhouse — would have found the youthful idealist bragging to newspapers before the Iraq invasion about the pro-war credentials of North Carolina candidate Erskine Bowles. “No one has been stronger in this race in supporting President Bush in the War on Terror and his efforts to effect a regime change in Iraq,” boasted the future “anti-war” activist Woodhouse.
With guys like this in charge of the anti-war movement, much of what has passed for peace activism in the past year was little more than a thinly veiled scheme to use popular discontent over the war to unseat vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008. David Sirota, a former congressional staffer whose new book, The Uprising, excoriates the Democrats for their failure to end the war, expresses disgust at the strategy of targeting only Republicans. “The whole idea is based on this insane fiction that there is no such thing as a pro-war Democrat,” he says. “Their strategy allows Democrats to take credit for being against the war without doing anything to stop it. It’s crazy.”
It is important not to overgeneralize when discussing peace groups. Peace Action definitely did not sell out.
By the way, there is a March 19 blogswarm against the Iraq war.
http://march19-blogswarm.blogspot.com/
Some sarcastic character on the Net wrote that “you can either be a good American or good Republican, but not both”. Maybe the word “Republican” is interchangeable with another political party– one much closer to home. Or, maybe it’s just practical politics for some senior Democratic officials to play to the emotions of their base in order to maintain power.
I didn’t know that about Hildebrand, thanks for the update.
Funny, after one year, I hate the democrats almost as much as I hate the GOP.
If politicians are analgous to tools, and not in the pejorative sense, then we’ve gotta go back to hardware store.
But Suzie, it needs to end. Damn facts anyway.
i think the war will end, simply because the voters will keep punishing the most pro-war candidate at the ballot box. that’s what happened in 2006, but the party leadership didn’t get the message. so we’ll have to send another message in november.
although the economy is now issue #1, the war will continue to rank high as long as it goes on. it’s only a matter of time before the washington establishment gets the message and does the right thing.
But at the rate of cash burn, Iraq is an economic issue as well. How much debt can the government accumulate before the creditors say “enough”? What cuts do we make if Congress cannot borrow money?
“What cuts do we make if Congress cannot borrow money?”
The ones the Republicans have planned on from Day One- the only pot of money big enough to affect matters- Social Security and Medicare. And it will happen while inflation is raging, savaging seniors.