Idiot Liberal

Before the Iraq supplemental bill got to the floor, Rep. David Obey got into a celebrated shouting match with an antiwar protester and Marine Mom, calling her an "idiot liberal" for agitating against Obey's plan to add a withdrawal timeline when she "didn't know what was in the bill."



The key passages here were these two:

The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill! You don't have to cut off funds for an activity that no longer is legal! [...]

That bill ends the war! If that isn't good enough for you, you're smoking something illegal!

Turns out that, after the conference report, the activity won't be illegal, as House Democrats have caved and will accept the Senate's language that the end date for withdrawal is "advisory."

Next week, the House and Senate will reconcile the competing pieces of legislation they passed last month and send a new bill to the White House. House Democratic leaders have convened meetings throughout the week with their members, urging them to accept a compromise calling for a goal, as the Senate has done, not a mandatory deadline.

Liberals who want to end the occupation for Iraq were idiots because they didn't trust Rep. Obey and the Democratic leadership not to roll over and submit a useless, advisory withdrawal timeline. If the President had any sense he'd sign the law and commence laughing for the next 19 months. Fortunately, he's a stubborn fool, so he won't sign it. But I've had it with our "betters" in the Democratic Party telling the grassroots to shut up and they'll handle what's best for us.

The party line here is that the President's going to veto it anyway, so what difference does it make? The answer is, plenty, as Kagro X explains.

"The president is going to veto it anyway, so what difference does it make?" A good question. Of course, the same question could be asked of Senate Democrats who refuse to go along with the binding timeline language. Why not go along? The president is going to veto it anyway, so what difference does it make?

And yet, no one asks that question of conservative Democrats. Only of progressives. What difference do your principles make? The president says they don't matter, and the Congressional leadership concurs.

So the plan now is, Democrats offer the president full funding for the troops, a billion more for veterans' health care, in exchange for "advisory" language on redeployment as a "goal," plus the ability to waive requirements that troops sent to Iraq be fully trained and armored.

What difference does it make? The president is going to veto it anyway.

Well, he damned well better, at this point. Though frankly, I can't see why he would. Can you?

After years and years of watching Democrats lose every seat of power in the government, the progressive movement coalesced, got moving again, and dragged the stinking carcass of the Democratic Party across the finish line. For a reward, we are told to shut up, sit down, and mind our manners.

Forget the fact that the strategy is nonsense. Forget the fact that, if the bill is going to be "vetoed anyway," it makes sense to offer the strongest possible opposition to ensure that there's a clear contrast between the President and the Congress. This comes down to a matter of respect.

David Obey, you're a keen mind and a longtime stalwart in the Congress, but in this case, you're just an idiot liberal.