With the New Year nearly upon us, the euphoria felt by many liberals based on the 2006 mid-term elections is waning, and is instead being replaced by a feeling that very little will change in Washington in 2007. That is unless liberals continue to make their positions known to a Congress they helped elect. The message for Progressives in 2007 must be that the work is never done and there is no time for rest in Washington. Politicians are politicians; they aren't liberals and they must continually be pushed to support the causes of those that helped get them elected.
The major issue on which liberals need to work is of course the Iraq war. Incredulously, President Bush has stated publicly that he supports an increase in troop levels in Iraq and keeping US forces there through the end of his presidency. That's in direct conflict with what the American people told George Bush on November 7, but the Decider has little interest in the will of the people. And apparently the same can be said of John McCain who also supports a troop increase as he positions himself as the Republican replacement for President Bush in the 2008 election. So much for "Mr. Straight-talk". Are Democratic representatives and senators ready to battle the Administration on the President's proposed strategy for Iraq (to be revealed some time in January)?
With a few exceptions, it appears that the Democrats are prepared to fight the White House in January on Iraq, but the worry is over whether they have the courage to take decisive action to stop the war and withdraw the troops. I think that is in serious doubt, and that is what liberal and progressive constituents need to continue to pressure their representatives to do.
Here is what I think the next session of Congress should do with respect to Iraq. First, stop funding for the war. In November 2005, Massachusetts Representative James McGovern introduced a bill to do just this - the bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee and hasn't seen the light of day since. If Democrats truly want to end the war, cutting off the funding is the way to do it, which leads to the second initiative - withdrawing the troops immediately. Third, impeach the President and Vice President.
New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated that impeachment is "off the table", but her reasoning for this position appears to be built on the same wishy-washy attitudes that earned the Democrats a seat on the sidelines for the last 12 years. Talk of healing and bi-partisanship is code for not having the guts to take decisive action and show the American people that a Democratic Congress can be strong and effective. In the era of Karl Rove, bi-partisanship is a conservative ploy to share blame where possible. It is not in any sense an invitation to do the right thing. When will the Democrats learn this simple fact? The actions of this Congress will play a large role in how the American public choose in the 2008 and 2010 elections, and rest assured that if the Republicans reclaim power in either of the next 2 elections, there won't be any talk of bi-partisanship. They will resume their strategy for one-party rule.
In a previous post, I stated my reasoning for impeachment and danced around the subject of accountability. In his acceptance speech for the 2006 Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award, Sean Penn is more effective in communicating his thoughts on the impeachment of the President based on accountability. Although Speaker Pelosi doesn't want to pursue impeachment of Bush, there are several organizations that are keeping the initiative in the public eye. That's exactly what liberal and progressive groups need to do in 2007 - keep working the issues in Washington as if nothing has changed, because in reality, not much has.
