Edwards To Congress: Don't Fund War Without Withdrawal Timetable
Now that another legislative showdown over Iraq is looming, John Edwards is returning to a theme that early on animated his campaign: The insistence that Congress stand its ground against the White House and force an end to the war.
On a conference call just now with reporters, John Edwards reiterated that message, this time in light of the upcoming reports from the White House and General Petraeus. He delivered a simple message: If Congress can't get an Iraq funding bill with withdrawal timetables into law, it shouldn't pass one at all.
"It’s time for Congress to stand its ground," Edwards said on the call, as transcribed by TPM's Eric Kleefeld. "If there’s no timetable, then Congress should not submit a bill."
Edwards' move comes as some analysts have argued that its critical for him to show some sort of dramatic improvement in the polls soon. A return to the theme that successfully drove his campaign early on could provide a needed boost -- and help pull the the Iraq debate to the "left" in the Dem primary, as he did earlier in the race.
With an eye on the coming Iraq showdown, Edwards has launched a drive to raise money to run this full page ad in Roll Call, where every member of Congress will see it:
"Some analysts say" Greg?
September 5, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe John Edwards has a magic wand that can wave to transform 10 Senate Republicans into Democrats -- actually, better make it 12-15 (Blue Dogs and red-staters, you know). I for one would consider it a personal favor if he could do that for us.
September 5, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah CalD, that magic is the bill goes forward as written and no other bill gets optioned for. When that is the only bill that will pass through Congress, the Republicans and Blue Dogs will have the choice of passing that bill or having no funding bill whatsoever pass.
September 5, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
All well and good, but will this reach beyond Roll Call, which very few actually read. Surely his campaign has something more than just this? Even I could do better than this.
I'm not voting for Edwards, but I really like a great deal of his message. It's a shame that he's been such an abysmal messenger on some really important issues. He hasn't been innovative as has Clinton or worked to spark a lot of energy like Obama. What the heck is he doing?
September 5, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "transformation of republicans."
Getting such a transformation would be nice, but it is impossible. However, the point of what Edwards advocates is that there are enough Senators to filibuster any funding for the war. That would end the war. It is doubtful whether there are enough democrats in the House (which lacks filibuster capacity) to prevent a funding bill from being passed (given how politically risky such a vote might be), but it could be done in the Senate with 41 votes AGAINST a funding bill.
September 5, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is right on the mark on this. It is a simple, straightforward and effective strategy to stop the war.
What is wrong with you people who keep thinking that our side "needs" any Republicans? It's no more war funds and if any but funds for safe and orderly passage from Iraq are included then no bills passes at all. It's that simple.
But, oh yeah, that would take some balls and that's something that congressional Democrats in general don't have and apparently even their apologists on threads like this.
And gq said:
"I'm not voting for Edwards, but I really like a great deal of his message. It's a shame that he's been such an abysmal messenger on some really important issues. He hasn't been innovative as has Clinton or worked to spark a lot of energy like Obama. What the heck is he doing?"
An abysmal messenger? Hasn't been innovative like Clinton or energetic like Obama? What are you talking about. If it weren't for John Edwards actually DEMONSTRATING leadership on the war, poverty, acceptance of contributions from lobbyists, etc... neither Clinton nor Obama would have taken the position they did this spring regarding war funding and certainly wouldn't now be talking about change as though it were something they favor. Whatever the outcome of the Dem. nominating contest, Edwards' leadership on substantive issues has without any question pushed the entire Democratic debate (Clinton and Obama with it) to the left.
If the Democrats had any balls at all they would simply use the power they have at their disposal to pull the plug on funding the war and thus stop the senseless bloodletting in Iraq and also prevent the insanity of Bush's desire to attack Iran. But again, it would take something congressional D's don't got: balls.
September 5, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, "some analysts," always looking for pure self-interest. This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the drop in approval for the Democratic Congress is directly tied to their failure to impede Bush's war, or that Edwards has strong ties to the grassroots and netroots who are screaming for it, could it?
September 5, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Anonymous said! I suspect JRE's failure to "innovate" has something to do with the Press-based hatred of his antiestablishment campaign. Face facts -- JRE may yet succeed (I have serious doubts) but only through a tremendous surge by us unwashed and disillusioned masses. Rigged game, indeed...
September 5, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What anonymous said.
Go Edwards!
September 5, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are these nameless "analysts" who have argued that Edwards has to show some improvement in the polls soon? I would really like to know who they are and what possible relevance to the election for President is their personal preference in this situation?
There's absolutely no reason to believe Edwards needs to improve in the polls soon. There's every reason to believe he needs to do well in the Iowa caucuses and the NH primary if his candidacy is to succeed. That means he will have to capture the attention of the public without the help of the juvenile media whose only interest is in covering the 1st potential woman vs the 1st potential black President matchup. I don't dislike either Hillary or Obama and wish them well, but the media's focus on the two of them to the exclusion of all else is not only a disservice, but has resulted in the usual poorly informed electorate making the choices they are guided to by a foolish and incompetent press corps.
In contradiction to the unsupported assertion that "some analysts" argue Edwards is under some obligation to do things as they would like I would point you to, first, the piece that ran here at EC pointing to Carville's declaration that the national polls are meaningless at this point. I certainly agree with him on that. Second, I would point out that Edwards' campaign seems to be on track in terms of its long stated goals of focusing on and being competitive in IA & NH. Thus far, he appears to be in the thick of it in both states so I'd say that's a pretty successful effort thus far.
Edwards has the money right now to remain in the race and wage a competitive campaign through Iowa and NH if he were to stop collecting donations now despite the fundraising lead of the others. There is at some point, a point of diminishing returns regarding the amount of campaign cash you collect and certainly Hillary and Barak must be approaching that point, but the fact that they have more money in and of itself doesn't mean that Edwards is out of it. Far from it.
Unlike the others, Edwards is campaigning with heart about issues that actually matter to regular people and apparently to him. He didn't just start campaigning on change this week with vague bromides in tv spots as the two leaders have. The man has actually been talking substantive issues and making clear, thoughtful proposals about implementing his ideas and pushing the others in the race toward the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to use a well known phrase. And more specifically, Edwards has been forceful and unequivocal about bringing an end to the war which is something that cannot really be said about Clinton or Obama since both have waffled and neither has demonstrated any leadership in the Senate on the issue as they most certainly could if they wished to do so.
If anything, it would seem that the time factor is oddly on Edwards' side in some respects and against both Hillary and Obama. Neither of the two leaders have gotten off the mark from their starting point rhetoric. Both of them continue to talk generalities and hedge their bets thinking they must stay in the middle of the road for the general election.
Edwards, instead, doesn't seem to be hedging his bets. He's showing his cards and putting them on the table for all to see that he's a real Democrat and an unabashed liberal. When voters tire of the generalities, I think many will take another look and end up in his camp. Who knows if he'll win or if one of the other two will win? I don't. What seems clear to me is that if John Edwards weren't in this race and taking the positions he's been taking, it would be a very different race indeed.
September 5, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Edwards, and some of you above, are wrong.
That would end the war.
Nope, no it wouldn't.
Edwards is right on the mark on this. It is a simple, straightforward and effective strategy to stop the war.
Nope, it's really not.
I explain why here
Key graphs:
So, basically, Edwards is wrong. Refusing to appropriate funds could end the war, or it couldn't. Indeed, we'd have to rely on George Bush complying with the law, instead of exercising the physical power he commands over the Treasury. Who wants to bet how that one turns out?
September 5, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are these nameless "analysts" who have argued that Edwards has to show some improvement in the polls soon? I would really like to know who they are and what possible relevance to the election for President is their personal preference in this situation?
Well, for one, , there's Chris Bowers, who is an Edwards supporter, who thinks he needs to improve.
There's absolutely no reason to believe Edwards needs to improve in the polls soon.
Uh...yeah there is. I can give plenty. How about: not being competitive right now in either NH or SC or nationally gives him very little margin of error in Iowa, regardless of his fundraising. I'll throw in that his trends in Iowa, NH, and SC are all going down right now.
In contradiction to the unsupported assertion that "some analysts" argue Edwards is under some obligation to do things as they would like I would point you to, first, the piece that ran here at EC pointing to Carville's declaration that the national polls are meaningless at this point.
Right, because support is soft, and the early states matter a lot more. However, Edwards is not doing well in NH, and trending down in both Iowa and NH. How is that a good thing?
Second, I would point out that Edwards' campaign seems to be on track in terms of its long stated goals of focusing on and being competitive in IA & NH. Thus far, he appears to be in the thick of it in both states so I'd say that's a pretty successful effort thus far.
What? He's getting crushed in NH, where he's currently polling 5th, behind Clinton, Obama, Gore, and Richardson. He's just barely in the double digits there, with 10.4% support, and trending down. Obama is at 21.5 and Clinton 34.5. How is Edwards "in the thick" of that? Obama doubles his support and Clinton triples it!
Edwards has the money right now to remain in the race and wage a competitive campaign through Iowa and NH if he were to stop collecting donations now despite the fundraising lead of the others. There is at some point, a point of diminishing returns regarding the amount of campaign cash you collect and certainly Hillary and Barak must be approaching that point, but the fact that they have more money in and of itself doesn't mean that Edwards is out of it. Far from it.
Right, but that's not the point. The point is that he's in a very weak poll position in every early state save Iowa, and is trending down in every state, including Iowa. That's not a desirable situation. What's more, he's not at all currently in position to compete in NH without a very strong showing in Iowa.
Unlike the others, Edwards is campaigning with heart about issues that actually matter to regular people and apparently to him. He didn't just start campaigning on change this week with vague bromides in tv spots as the two leaders have. The man has actually been talking substantive issues and making clear, thoughtful proposals about implementing his ideas and pushing the others in the race toward the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to use a well known phrase.
Oh please, this is just partisan chearleading. Obama has been campaigning on change since he entered the race, has been calling for a change in the political culture of Washington all the way back to 2004. The reforms he's offered (see here and here) on lobbying, ethics, campaign finance, and transparency in government, are right in line with his legislative history at both the state and federal level, and dwarf Edwards empty rhetoric on simply "fighting" special interests in Washington. Apparently, John Edwards' plan to beat the billions of dollars of lobby money in Washington is to simply yell loudly about it. Awesome. Who's peddling vague bromides again? Someone is, but it's not Obama
I could go on. Obama's plans on FP have dwarfed Edwards' in both breadth and depth. What a surprise: Obama, the guy with a long history of ethics and lobby reform and the strongest track record of FP judgment of the Dems' "big 3" is running on...ethics reform and foreign policy! Edwards is running on a platform tailored to Iowa. I guess he just really really cares about the issues that Iowans do. Of course it's not politically motivated, that's ridiculous! I'm sure all his trips to Iowa before the election season weren't politically-motivated either. He just really cares about the state and the issues that matter most to it's citizens.
Please. That's pretty weak stuff right there.
And more specifically, Edwards has been forceful and unequivocal about bringing an end to the war which is something that cannot really be said about Clinton or Obama since both have waffled and neither has demonstrated any leadership in the Senate on the issue as they most certainly could if they wished to do so.
Oh please, this is such a canard, as I pointed out earlier in the thread. Bush is the commander-in-chief and controls the Treasury and has historical precedent to use funds in the absence of Congressional appropriations.
If anything, it would seem that the time factor is oddly on Edwards' side in some respects and against both Hillary and Obama. Neither of the two leaders have gotten off the mark from their starting point rhetoric.
That's because their messages have gained traction, and lead to rises in the polls, whereas Edwards has to re-brand his message in response to his numbers falling across the board.
Both of them continue to talk generalities and hedge their bets thinking they must stay in the middle of the road for the general election.
Apparently, you have no idea what you're talking about. Obama has unveiled a wide and strongly progressive platform. Another canard from the Edwards' chearleaders. "He's the only progressive in the race!" Right...
Edwards, instead, doesn't seem to be hedging his bets. He's showing his cards and putting them on the table for all to see that he's a real Democrat and an unabashed liberal. When voters tire of the generalities, I think many will take another look and end up in his camp.
I'm tired of Edwards' generalities on what he's going to do about lobby influence and in foreign policy. Which is why Edwards has been falling in my estimation. So...no. You're wrong. You can pretend like Obama has been vague, but you need only go to his website to see how many detailed, thorough proposals he's offered. Edwards has been specific in some areas, vague and cliched in others. He has his platform, it's impressive, but it certainly is not singular, and it's not comprehensive.
Who knows if he'll win or if one of the other two will win? I don't.
Nor do I, but there are some things that are pretty obvious to the rest of us, such as Edwards seeing his position increasingly weaken as the race has worn on, to the point where he's switched messages and adopted some of Obama's rhetoric. Ironically, his supporters then notice that he and Obama sound similar and have tried to turn that into an instance of Edwards "leading" Obama. I don't know how that can be the case when Obama has been railing against special interests since he announced he's running and had already delivered a substantive policy speech and proposal months before Edwards recent speech on the subject (that offered little in specifics)
So basically...your entire post sounds like the product of getting the majority of your news in an Edwards-friendly echo chamber, and interpreting everything you see through rose-colored (for Edwards) glasses. The fact that you'd use your obviously biased stance to rant at the good work Sargent is doing here at TPM is kind of sad, really. It's not hard to look at the poll positions, the poll trends, the money numbers, the crowds, the strategies of the campaigns, and conclude some basic and obvious truths:
1-Hillary is in the strongest (but by no means overwhelmingly strong) position.
2-Obama is well within striking distance.
3-Edwards is in trouble, and sinking. His shot at the nomination right now is a pretty long one.
September 5, 2007 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
So mopper, you're solution is to do what? Nothing? Like the congressional Democrats? Shall we sit here whining about how we "need" 10 Republicans? We don't need them.
Successfully implementing this strategy would require, as I think I said above: balls. That means that you'd be required to do something over and above just the legislative manuevering necessary to cut off funding. That would entail things like rallying the American people and calling upon them to make clear their opposition to continuation of the bloodbath in Iraq and also their support for the congressional position of ending the war. Can you even imagine what the response might be nationwide if congressional Democrats actually called for demonstrations against the President and his illegal, immoral war? That has never been done, but I imagine the response would be, to put it mildly, robust.
Now, if that were tried and it failed, we might have to shrug our shoulders and wonder what else to do, but simply because the President has the option to be defiant is no reason to support doing nothing or waiting for the Republicans to see the light.
So, I maintain that Edwards is right. Sometimes you just need to do what is right, because it is the right thing to do. Funny thing is, doing the right thing often works. Demonstrating political, moral courage is often a catalyst for political success, but that's something congressional D's know little or nothing about since they've never done it. Sure there is a risk of failure, but it's a damn sight better than the pussified position of our alleged "leaders" in Congress who act like helpless infants and do nothing to end the war.
The bottom line is this: those who say we can do nothing and counsel taking no action are not only wrong, but complicit.
September 5, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
mopper, if Bush chose to continue illegal funding after rejecting a bill providing funding plus a withdrawal plan, he wouldn't be comparable to the past presidents you cite. He would be assuring that impeachment becomes the primary issue of the campaign and the national discussion. Would he risk it anyway? Who knows -- he's nuts. Either way, it would be a victory for the left and the anti-war majority. So in that sense Edwards is right in insisting on this strategy.
I agree with everything Oleeb said. I don't understand why a candidate that everyone here said they were looking for gets all the flak now that he's a reality. I can only assume that the passion for Clinton and Obama are primarily based on gender and race issues, and in the case of Clinton, misguided nostalgia.
September 5, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anon,
You don't like Edwards. I get it. We disagree. That's okay too, but your hysterics don't make anything you say true. In fact, most of your "evidence" is demonstrably innacurate or irelevant and no matter how fervently you wish what you've written is true doesn't make it so.
I'm not interested in a pissing match with you and I don't really care about changing your mind since you've obviously ossified your support for Obama. That's cool. Go for it pal! Good luck with that. But, you don't have to behave like a two year old and engage in the petty nastiness you got off on in the post above. When your man starts rising in the polls from the position he has been in for months you let me know and I'll cheer for ya both. But between now and then, when it comes to the other candidates, the foaming at the mouth is unbecoming. Really.
Edwards is positioned fine right now and is certainly poised to implement his strategy. Your histrionics don't change that fact. Why would you get your nose so out of joint about a candidate who is sinking anyway bud? Methinks, in a big way, you doth protest too much. :)
Oh, by the way, who is Chris Bowers? And what's his claim to any special esoteric knowledge of what Edwards does or does not need to do? Anybody else?
September 5, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
..if national security interests are sufficiently critical, the President can spend the money in the absence of an appropriation and hope either that Congress ratifies the action or that he has adequate capital to withstand the resulting political maelstrom.
how that in any way leads you to conclude bush would win the showdown in that scenario is bewilderingly absurd.
September 5, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meh, it's easy for Edwards to say since he isn't in Congress.
The fact is that people are aware the funding originates in Congress, and if something doesn't gets funded, it's usually on Congress to fund it.
While people are against the war and want it to end, polls have shown that they don't support defunding.
Sending the same bill over and over and over sounds nice in theory, and yes the American people would be mad at Bush for not signing it, but that doesn't mean that Congress gets off the hook for not eventually finding a way to fund "the troops."
I think Congress funding the war is inevitable and it always was. Congress isn't just going to let funding run out. However, they can at least make their point clear and blame Bush and the republicans for refusing to allow a timetable to go forward.
September 6, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink