Tonight was a forum on Iraq sponsored by Democracy for NYC, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, Independent Neighborhood Democrats, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Brooklyn Parents for Peace and MANY other groups. Jarrold Nadler, Anthony Weiner and my own Congresswoman Yvette Clarke showed up. Nydia Velazquez had planned to make it but had to attend a funeral. Ed Towns begged off with another commitment. Vito Fossella politely declined (big surprise...imaging HIM facing the common people about a real issue). Senators Clinton and Schumer were invited but chose not to even respond to the invitation, if I understood correctly. This goes along with what I have personally experienced with Chuck Schumer's office in the past where a bunch of disgruntled New York City Democrats were basically told upstate was more important than NYC.

My view of the event was affected by the fact I was watching Jacob. I missed all of Nadler's opening satement and half of Clarke's opening satement. I also had to leave early, as I am sure the audience heard when Jacob started feeling sick and calling loudly for mommy! But I have Joy's impressions and notes as well.

A summary of the event could go like this: Park Slope is pretty pissed at the Democrats for not being stronger than they have been on Iraq and Impeachment; Yvette Clarke palyed well to the crowd, probably satisfying many who did not vote for her in the primary last year; Anthony Weiner came off rather insulting as if he felt we were all being too naive and had little clue how politics works; Jarrold Nadler seemed to feel much the same as Anthony Weiner but came off far less insulting when he said it; and Park Slope Democrats were largely left still rather pissed about the inaction of Congress.

Both the crowd and the Congress Critters were a smart and well-informed bunch. The Congress Critters conveyed some pretty interesting facts and information, and the audience asked some good questions. As an intellectual exchange it was a good one, even if nothing really surprising was said on either side.

Yvette Clarke gave an impassioned and well-received opening speech, while Nadler and Weiner spent more time essentially telling us that the Democrats feel too weak to stand up to Bush too much. Yvette stood pretty solidly for opposing any more funding for Iraq and was supportive of impeachment. I think her stand was viewed as being a bit naive and too much playing to the crowd by Nadler and Weiner. And perhaps they are at least partly right. But what she did succeed in doing is reassure a crowd that had favored Chris Owens and David Yassky, which is a pretty smart thing for her to do. I also think there was a great deal heartfelt about it as well, particularly since many, myself included, had expected her to be largely under Anthony Weiner's influence. Weiner did not look pleased at what she said.

Nadler's main arguement is that they have ALREADY proposed excellent proposals to get out of Iraq, passed one of them, had the Senate water it down, then watch Bush veto it. Nadler would like to see the Democrats send the same proposal back to Bush over and over, forcing him to veto funding for our troops over and over again. The Democratic leadership in Congress refused to do this. I agree with him completely on this and his suggestion is that we all push Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership to do just this. I have felt that Nadler had not only a pretty good sense of how to get us out of Iraq, but has always had good ways of framing the debate such that it is Bush who is refusing to fund ourt troops. His own proposal earlier this year was, in my opinion, quite excellent and I would love to see it revived...over and over again. Nadler was far less supportive of the crowd's view on impeachment, indicating in essence it was a waste of time since even if the House COULD impeach the Senate would merely acquit. My problem with this is that similar arguements were put forward against the impeachment of Richard Nixon. It is in the process of impeaching that the case has to be made WHY impeachment is taking place. Without impeachment the case may never be heard. That said, Nadler wants to propose legislation that will extend the statute of limitations on prosecution of the President and VP on crimes, thus allowing future Congresses to take up the issue if they find the political climate more conducive.

Weiner's basic arguement seemed weakest. Not necessarily wrong, but too defensive given the 2006 elections. Weiner seemed to argue that throughout most of the country the stands taken in Park Slope on Iraq and Impeachment would ruin our chances of picking up more seats in Congress and could lead to the loss of some seats. I think he is dead wrong and that the lesson of 2006 was that it is the Democrats with the STRONGEST stands against the war who won and a candidate's support of impeachment seldom hurt them ANYWHERE in the country. Some of the freshmen Congressmen are pretty conservative. Don't get me wrong. I understand there are indeed sharp differences between Dems in Park Slope and Dems in Indiana or Missori. But the unpopularity of the war and of Bush himself are what won the election for so many Democrats, and it is PRECISELY very strong stands against the war and for impeachment that will be APPRECIATED by voters. What they do NOT like is what they see as wimping out by Democrats and wimping out is what Weiner is advocating. Even if he advocates it very intelligently and articulately it is still wimping out.

When I watch events like this, I always try to step back a bit and just get a gut feeling about the speakers. When I did this, stepping back from my desire to see more spine in Democrats, I once again realized that I really do like our Congressional reps...they are a pretty smart bunch, pretty much vote the right way and pretty much are willing to talk to their constituents openly and debate issues. In all three of these I think our Congressional reps are better than those in most of the country and if we had a Congress filled with people just like these three we'd be a lot better off. I may disagree with Clarke, Nadler and Weiner on the details of some issues, but I still feel like they are fundamentally the kind of people I can trust to represent me...if they actually follow their OWN values reliably. I trust their intelligence, their basic values and their basic ideas. What I don't always trust is that they will follow through with what their intelligence, values and ideas tell them to do because Democrats are experts at second guessing themselves and Weiner in particular seems prone to do that.

I certainly want to thank Nadler, Clarke and Weiner for coming to the event and ALLOWING Park Slope Democrats to vent their general frustration at them even though by and large they vote the way we want them to. I think we need to vent and they need to hear it and they know that the more active and wealthier Democrats they depend on to fund the DNC, DCCC and DSCC need some quality time with their electeds. I thank them for being willing to spend some quality time with us and listening to us vent.

But I also think that the frustration many Democrats feel NATIONWIDE can turn and bite the Democrats in the ass, and I think Anthony Weiner is ignoring that. Bush's approval ratings are reaching lows never before seen since, perhaps, the time of King George III. But Congress' approval ratings are not so hot either and this is a sharp fall from the widespread euphoria that people acorss the nation, right down to Montana and Indiana, felt about the Democratic Majority. That sharp fall should be a warning to our Party. We are not being viewed as fulfilling the strong rhetoric that swept us into the majorty. You DON'T win more seats by abandoning those very strong stands that got us the majority in the first place. The longer we fail to make those strong stands, whether or not we can override the inevitable veto or break the inevitable filibuster, the lower Congress' ratings will go. FORCE the vetos, as Nadler suggests. FORCE the filibusters. FORCE the Republicans to have to explain their obstructionism to the voters rather than putting yourself in a position to explain to some of the most loyal, active and generous Democrats in the nation why you are letting Bush call all the shots even now.

Some interesting local gossip. Among those in the audience were both Major and Chris Owens, Joan Millman, Jim Brennan (I think...saw him from behind), Jake Gold (who has been spending more quality time with CBID these days, I notice), Alan Fleishman (hang in there as our District Leader, Alan!), Jo Anne Simon, Bill DeBlasio, Eric Adams, Kevin Powell, Ken Diamondstone, Ralph Perfetto, Gloria Mattera and Steve Harrison.

Gloria Mattera momentarily forgot she might not want to remind people that Greens sometimes enable Republicans by claiming that Democrats like Gore are the same as Republicans like Bush when she suggested that Greens might do to Hillary Clinton what they did to Al Gore. Now I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, and I have supported Gloria in her run against the Angry Clown, Marty Markowitz, but Nadler's slap down of Gloria on this was well deserved. Hillary deserves criticism, but we do NOT need another insane Republican extremist running America, and if the Greens screw America again the way Nader did in 2000, I may almost stomach a Markowitz over a Green next time. Nadler is right: had Nader not claimed Gore was the equivalent of Bush, a lie that is more clearly false now than ever, we probably would never have invaded Iraq in the first place.

Keven Powell and Steve Harrison each asked intelligent questions and took the opportunity to take a swipe at the absent Congressmen they plan on challenging: Powell against Ed Towns (NY-10) and Harrison against Vito Fossella (NY-13). Powell promised that he, unlike Towns, would show up to forums like tonights (to be fair, I do not know what previous engagement kept Towns away...). And Harrison made it clear that if he is elected, replacing Bush Republican Fossella, Harrison will be one more strong voice against the war bringing Democrats that much closer to the strength that Democrats like Weiner seem to require before they are willing to take strong stands. (As an aside, and merely a personal impression, it seemed to me that Nadler reacted somewhat negatively to Harrison while Weiner was quite warm to him...are we seeing battle lines being drawn over an upcoming primary?)

The first question asked was by a woman whose son had been on tours of duty in both Afghanistan and Iraq and was still on reserve service. She explained how her son took the test to join the NYPD and passed, but was ultimately turned away because he had served in Iraq. If I understood the story completely, it seems service in Iraq is now considered a big fat negative if you want to return to civilian life and serve in law enforcement. This woman spent $25,000 of her own money to hire a lawyer and successfully sued to get her son reinstated in the NYPD. Why should it take a lawyer and $25,000 to prove your son is okay after serving in Iraq? This speaks volumes about what is wrong with America today and what is wrong with this damned war. This story indicates how insane things have become.

I think it is ultimately critical for everyone to be letting their Congress Critters know how they feel on key issues like Iraq and Impeachment. Republican or Dem, they need to know how the voters feel. Write them and let them know. It certainly can't hurt and if enough people write I can certainly change some minds. Speak out!