Nudge price: no more war funding

I got the announcement below by e-mail, and I really debated whether to post it. Recent discussions on OP have turned into polemic debates about the war in general, with nothing specific to Orange County.

So let's try to limit our discussion to our community and our representative. Although our personal opinions about congressional strategy are also pertinent since we are all local people! ;-)

WHAT: Picket and protest outside David Price's Chapel Hill office

WHERE: 88 Vilcom Center Suite 140 Chapel Hill, NC 27514

WHEN: Friday February 16th at 3 PM



Over the next few weeks, thousands of antiwar activists across the country will directly engage with their local representatives to demand a vote against Bush's supplemental funding bill for the war on Iraq and an immediate end to the occupation. (; UNC Chapel Hill Students for a Democratic Society is calling for all students, youth, and progressive community members in the Triangle to mobilize for a mass demonstration on Friday, February 16th, outside of Representative David Price's Chapel Hill office at 3 PM.

The Democratic Party won the 2006 midterm elections on the basis of mass opposition to the war. Now, three months later, they are betraying the anti-war mandate handed down by the people on November 7th and escalating this criminal war, which has already resulted in the deaths of over 650,000 Iraqis and 3,000 young Americans. Any politician who claims to be against the war has to prove it. We demand concrete, immediate, effective action - not lukewarm resolutions about "phased withdrawal" or "troop redeployment”. We want all funding cut off and the troops out NOW, and we will hold the politicians' feet to the fire until the will of the people is met!

On February 5th, 2007, Bush asked Congress for an additional $93 billion in supplemental funding to continue the criminal occupation of Iraq. While Big Oil companies rake in record profits, working people and students here at home are suffering. We've seen tuition hikes and cutbacks in social services across the board. It's clear that this is a war for the rich few who rule this country. We don't want another dime spent on this occupation--we should be rebuilding the Gulf Coast and funding jobs, education, and health care.

The choice is very clear for Representative David Price. Price voted against the war in 2002 only after a massive community campaign, culminating in a sit-in and demonstration by local activists, forced him to take a stand. Since then, he has voted in favor of every single Iraq War supplemental funding bill. Not surprisingly, in a recent meeting with 4th district constituents and phone calls to his home and DC offices, Price has avoided taking a stance on the upcoming supplemental funding vote, only insinuating that voting against the funding would not “support the troops.” Real support for the troops means bringing them home NOW!

Power concedes nothing without a demand. We call on all progressives, every student, and every young person who is opposed to this war and wants it to end to join us on February 16th. Stand up and speak out -- demand that Price vote against the war funding!


UNC-Chapel Hill SDS




BTW, Brad Miller for Senate 2008, don't you think?

David Price is a supporter. He can't do it alone. The point to remember is that some others represent districts where the opinions are the reverse of what we see here. And the situation in the Senate is such that a filibuster might never come to pass.

Fred makes a good point. It's not like Price is alone in this, there are 434 others making these decisions and he is to the left of most of them, even among his fellow Democrats.

Will seems to feel that we crass voters (not Will and his shining band of merry men, of course, the only true citizens left in his opinion) only support Price because he "brings home the bacon" and that if we lesser voters were less "selfish" than he, some shining leftist light out there could take Price's place and POOF! we're out of Iraq.

Actually, Paul, I believe you understand why Price gets elected and why Kerry got so many votes. Voters were actaully following the same kind of logic that you espouse. You say we can't take strong action because of what the conventional wisdom deems to be "possible". In the end, many, many voters who wished they had another option voted for Price & Kerry because they didn't want to help their opponents in any way. The fact that Price got elected has more to do with casting a "logical" vote within narrow parameters, not support for a Democratic Party war plan.

The Demcoratic Party does not have a "war plan" it has several "peace plans" but with Bush as President and a Senate where 60 votes are necessary, Price and other House leaders who want to set a firm timetable for withdrawal are not likely to get very far.

Paul, I don't think getting out of Iraq sooner than later is some kind of "leftist" ideal. I think I've been pretty clear that I don't represent other than myself - no band of merry women or men.

From the outside, it looks like someone, like a Kent Kanoy, espousing a separate direction than the local party leadership apparatchik, is treated like an invading virus. Instead of incorporating his foreign DNA, the leadership lymphocytes wrap, muffle and neutralize part dissent. The leadership misses an opportunity to strengthen their party with outside ideas.

Hanging "leftist" or "idealist" on an opponent wishing to replace Price is skillful "framing" but not very productive for your party's growth.

I'm not disparaging the voters, of which I have been one many times, that put Price in office. To suggest my criticism of Price's lack of leadership on this issue expands to the electorate is another skillful tactic but really quite lame.

Yes, Price is now making some progress, I'll credit him on that.

The measure, though, of his determination will be what happens when the initiatives he's signed onto fail. Does he immediately reintroduce a bill to get out? Does he tighten the screws?

As far as "selfish", on OP you and others, especially during last year's primary, have spoken about Price's "local" value - that his seniority and experience helps "bring home the bacon".

As I said above, I'm wondering if that wonderful "bacon" - locally needed housing grants, fire and police grants, research monies - is worth keeping him in office. In other words, would I (WILLR) be willing to pay more local local taxes, dig deeper into my wallet to charitably give, etc. to get us out of Iraq quicker?

I said I would - and if you'll note, I didn't disparage those who wouldn't.

It seems though that it's a "local" discussion we should be having...

Finally Paul, I believe I've been quite clear on the lens I view Iraq through. I grew up during Vietnam and lost friends and relatives to that fight. I've seen the abuse of executive power escalate with quantum jumps from Nixon's Watergate to Reagan's Iran-Contra to pretty much the whole of this Bush presidency.

Iraq and the political theater of the "war on terror", in my estimation, is the worse fiasco our country has ever been party to ever.

Worse. Ever.

With China and Saudi Arabia holding the note, our current leadership, including Price, has mortgaged my generation's, my son's and probably his kid's generation's future on it.

And like any parent, when you mess with my kids, all bets are off ;-)

Under that world view, I think every Congress critter is obligated to get a bucket and start putting out the fire.

Now, Paul, from what I've read on OP over the years, your world view differs. It appears you don't think we're sitting in a house on fire. Reasonable folks can disagree, right? So, where's the "reason" here?

Other than the political calculus, why shouldn't Price be laying everything on the line - including his local constituencies ability to get federal largesse - to get us out of the hell that is Iraq?

I just read through all of HR 645 and I think it is a good bill for congressional Democrats to rally around. His cosponsors include John Lewis, Chaka Fattah and Shelia Jackson-Lee, by the way, all staunch war opponents.

His resolution says that the authority of the legal "mission" defined in 2002 is over because, essentially, those "missions" have been accomplished.

It further states that 12/31/2007 shall be the expiration of the Presiden't authority. Period. No cerftications by the President that national interest says we must stay, blah, blah, blah, but a date certain.

It also provides for a comprehensive diplomatic, poiltical and economic role for the US in Iraq.

Take the time and read the bill all the way through if you haven't yet done so.

Will, last time I talked to Price, I told him I think all "earmarks" need to end, so don't include me with "the congressman needs to bring home the bacon" crowd, I have never favored such.

I think Price does and is much more than a pork-barrel politican, however, he is a scholar of Congress and a leader in internal reforms that don't get headlines but do a lot to reform and open the process. He also appears to have the respect of his peers.

On Iraq, he is trying to build consensus in his own party, which is still lacking, no fault of his as again, I think he plan would gain broad acceptance among Democrats.

Have you read Price's bill, Will?

Saw a poll yesterday that indicated that six in 10 don't want Congress to deny funding for additional troops. Also, 52 percent don't want Congress to revoke the authority they gave President Bush in 2002.

What would the local results show? So some want David Price to vote our (majority?) preferences, what about those from districts with the oppoosite point of view?

This is why I asked Sammy about the game plan. This issue is bigger than Price and some of the people he represents.

Paul, I've read Price's bill. I read his web site's PR missives (wish he'd 'blog). I get the glossies in the mail. I've seen his comments on the boob tube, in the MSM. I must be really dense because I've yet to see a clear statement from Price on why the strongest of measures aren't called for to get us out.

Oh, and if taking on the world is too much, why hasn't he clearly said they're going to go after Homeland Security profiteers? That's definitely in his assigned portfolio.

Fred, what poll was that?

Maybe that is beside the point. Doesn't "leading" sometimes mean going where the majority doesn't want to go?

I was just watching some Iraqii kids about my son's age - maybe younger - mopping up the blood from the 114 dead in Tuesday's Hilla attack. They seemed pretty matter-of-fact about it - pushing the pools of blood into the gutter.

What has this country's policies wrought that an 8 year old Iraqii kid is sweeping somebody's guts into a garbage pail?

Yes, if we pull out it could get worse but staying in is not any better. I think a leader should recognize that reality and do everything they can - in Price's case maybe camping out on Dole's and Burr's doorstep - to move forward - even if the REPORTED majority opinion is against them.

I'm a tired old record on this, so that's it for me.

Will, it was USA/Gallop.
Isnlt that exactly what Price is trying to do, lead? Yet, he is criticized for it and we discount the right others have to another opinion.

PS: it's so cold and snowy here in NYC that the pickpockets all have their hands in their own pockets!



Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.