Quandaries happen when there is a wishy washy, waffling attitude toward what is generally considered to be a wrong choice.
Quandaries happen when people fail to stand up for what is right, and become concerned too late to matter.
Quandary:
State of uncertainty or perplexity especially as requiring a choice between equally unfavorable options
The vote was taken in October 2002. There really was not much they could do by March of the next year. It was too late to oppose, and their base was becoming very outspoken by then....waiting for the bombs to fall as the shock and awe started.
McClatchy Washington Bureau, March 7 2003:
Democrats in quandary over how to show opposition to Bush's war plans WASHINGTON—Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle asked for floor time this week for the Senate to debate President Bush's policy on Iraq. When the time came Friday, only two Democrats showed up.
It was, after all, an exercise in futility. No legislation about war, no resolution on Iraq was at stake.
The nation may be divided over whether to take military action against Saddam Hussein without the backing of the United Nations. In Congress, however, the time for action is long past, leaving the opposition to vent in hallway declamations and in the occasional floor speech to an empty House or Senate chamber.
"This chamber is for the most part ominously, dreadfully silent," Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W-Va., an opponent of war without U.N. support, said recently.
Ominously, dreadfully silent. Afraid to speak out, afraid not to do so. George Bush was a master at putting our party in positions like that. Damned and ridiculed if they do, cursed if they don't.
Daschle, who voted for the resolution, has turned down requests from Byrd and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to bring up new resolutions that would place restrictions on war. Now that war is imminent, Democrats are in a quandary over how to give voice and leadership to the many voters looking to them to restrain the rush to war.
Senator Bob Graham was generally considered hawkish, but he warned them on Iraq. Before the vote in 2002 he told them
that the blood was going to be on their hands.."On Oct. 9, 2002, Graham — the guy everyone thought of as quiet, mild-mannered, deliberate, conflict-averse — let loose on his Senate colleagues for going along with President Bush's war against Iraq.
"We are locking down on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an enormous, gargantuan force, and that's who we're going to go after," Graham said on the floor. "That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent, particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future."
He told his fellow senators that if they didn't recognize that going to war with Iraq without first taking out the actual terrorists would endanger Americans, "then, frankly, my friends — to use a blunt term — the blood's going to be on your hands."
It was a watershed moment. Gone was the meticulous thinker who would talk completely around and through a problem before answering a question about it......
Instead they listened to the even more hawkish who felt that Democrats had to show their toughness on national security....and they listened to those who put winning above all else. They listened to those to whom tactics were everything and issues nothing.
And they still were listening to them in 2006. The candidates who were running as Democrats, many of them hand-picked...were
not to discuss Iraq during their campaigns.House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) made a round of calls yesterday to freshman Democrats, some of whom recently returned from trips to Iraq and made news with their positive comments on military progress. "I'm not finding any wobbliness on the war -- at all," Emanuel said.
The candidates learned quickly and well. Those the progressives supported who were outspoken on Iraq during their campaign...changed their tunes quickly once elected. This one stuck in my mind as we donated to him several times with enthusiasm.
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."
"I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.
But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.
"We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."
There are going to be more quandaries the minute President Elect Obama takes office. The people who wavered, who like McNerney, urged doing away with confrontation....they are the ones in power in this administration.
There will be quandaries on Iran, on Afghanistan. There will be positions to be taken on human rights, women's choice, the rights of the GLBT community.
I just saw a post at Open Left entitled
How about strident action on behalf of Democrats.So, Senate Democrats have threatened to block Roland Burris from being seated in the Senate. As I, and several others, have noted recently, this level of aggressive action is in direct contradiction with past timidity. It is also quite a contrast to their public statements on Al Franken.
"The top Senate Republican said his caucus would block any attempt to seat Democrat Al Franken until an anticipated court case over Minnesota's close election is finished and an official election certificate is conferred.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn said Friday that Republicans would object to seating the race leader Franken sooner. A filibuster would require 60 votes to break - a few more than Democrats currently hold in Washington. (...)
Senate Democrats have not indicated what they would do if Franken's lead over Coleman holds up after the recount ends."
So, Senate Democrats will take aggressive action to deny a Democrat from being seated, but not take aggressive action to seat a Democrat. To paraphrase Lisa Simpson, their paper-thin commitment to legally appointed and legally elected Democrats--especially when considered in contrast to their commitment to Lieberman--sends a shiver down my spine.
Different topic than mine, yet very much the same thing.
There is a time when a party stands up strongly or doesn't. This is a time when apparently we are going to be "post partisan" (past partisanship..one party)....meaning the right wing ideology will easily hold sway.
So we are to stop being confrontational. The GOP will of course continue. It just can't happen that way.
DU Donor
