Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats
No comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

A Fire-Breather in Congress

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (113 fans)

opednews.com

Rep. Robert Wexler (Dem., Florida) has written a book, soon to be released, that is as different from most congress members' books as Wexler is from most congress members.  He's titled it "Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress."  Wexler is depicted on the cover with the Capitol in the background and his fists in the air.  

Wexler is a fighter and a liberal, and - yes - one CAN be both.  But Wexler, I think, is more of a fighter than a liberal.  He's unusually willing to speak up and fight for controversial positions.  He does so loudly and articulately, and he goes for the jugular.  But I don't find in his book any passionate or deep liberal world view.  In fact, at times, Wexler expresses viewpoints that I find disturbingly illiberal.

I would have titled the book "Fire-Breathing democrat."  I made the 'd' lowercase on purpose.  Wexler, far more than most members of Congress, appears to take the positions supported by his constituents.  It is his constituents who turn out, more often than not, to be liberal.  That Wexler listens to them so extensively and carefully and then acts on their wishes with a resolve and determination that can singe your eyebrows is what makes Wexler that rarest of Congress Members, a Democrat with a spine.  

Wexler is not the only aggressive progressive in Congress.  His most daring positions - on impeachment, on Iraq, on elections - are a step behind someone like Dennis Kucinich, who also pulls no punches.  But Wexler has a voice in the media that is unique, I think, because his positions are not so far opposed to those of the corporate media that he's shut out, and because he likes a fight.  In his book, he's smart enough to quote right-wing media attacks on himself rather then running from them.  More Democrats do the wrong thing, more often, because they're afraid of media attacks, which would actually benefit them, than for any other reason.

Wexler's book is not an outline of his view for our political future.  And it's not a campaign book laying out positions.  While it is an autobiographical account of Wexler's years, thus far (since 1996), in Congress and a brief account of how he got there in the first place, the book's larger aim seems to be civic education.  Wexler explains to readers how elections are won and lost, how positions are advanced, how compromises are made, and how bills actually become what nowadays passes for "law."  This is an education that every American needs.  "I want," Wexler writes, "to bring you inside the system in the hope that we can begin to change it together."  

Some may recall seeing Wexler passionately defending against the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, or demanding a full recount of the 2000 election in Florida.  Wexler represents the district with the butterfly ballots and the mythical "Jews for Buchanan" votes.  Others may know of Wexler as the House Judiciary Committee Member who began pushing last year for Chairman John Conyers to take up the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  Wexler did that, in large part, because his constituents asked him to, because he listens to them, and because he knows how to think in terms of offense.  A Democratic Party that played offense would be holding impeachment hearings and forcing John McCain to defend every impeachable offense.  


Others may recall seeing Wexler in recent months grill various Bush witnesses in committee hearings.  Since Wexler came out for impeachment, his questioning of witnesses has out-shown most other representatives'.  Just go to Youtube and look up Robert Wexler.

Wexler voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq, and now says he regrets having done so.  He claims to have believed the White House lies about Iraq, something I think could only be true if Wexler were far less intelligent than he is.  In fact, Wexler claims that those who said there were no "weapons of mass destruction" prior to the invasion were just guessing and explains that it only became clear the White House was lying when no weapons were found.  Actually, of course, that would only prove that the White House had been mistaken.  While the evidence that Bush and Cheney and gang were lying has piled up over the years, it was abundant prior to the vote.  Kucinich circulated an analysis of it to his colleagues.  Here's the evidence, old and new:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments

Wexler also claims not to have known that his constituents would disapprove of that vote.  That seems possible.  But Wexler now knows that his constituents want out of Iraq, and yet he has voted over and over again to fund the occupation, and he is not leading a fire-breathing charge against the funding bill now under consideration.  I suspect that nonsensical "Don't defund the troops" sound-bytes and a misguided notion that militarism goes very well with a fighting image are weighing on Wexler more heavily than the opinions of his constituents this time (except perhaps the opinions of some campaign donors -- somehow these books manage to avoid the whole topic of donors).  

Wexler was one of three Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal when the Republicans proposed a parody of Rep. John Murtha's withdrawal proposal as a political stunt.  Wexler is not afraid to stand alone or lead the way, but that doesn't mean he always does so when liberals might wish he would.  Wexler likes to talk about withdrawal proposals as a way to "put pressure on the Iraqis," as if 80% of them don't want full withdrawal and haven't wanted it for years.  Wexler writes of how much he loves "The Star Spangled Banner," a war song.

The real liberals in the House, on the other hand, don't know how to breathe fire.  The current war funding bill has been arranged to include separate votes on the war money and on other matters.  The Blue Dog (rightwing) Democrats joined with the Republicans last week to block a vote on the Rule to bring the whole thing up, because they opposed spending money on things like helping veterans and wanted to proceed only with creating more veterans.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of which Wexler is a member, has many more members than the Blue Dogs and could easily block the Rule in opposition to the war money if Speaker Pelosi finds a way to buy off the Blue Dogs.  But CPC Co-Chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, and Out of Iraq Caucus Chair Maxine Waters won't do it, and won't persuade enough progressives to fall in line if they do.  They're not breathing enough fire.

Social Security is a topic where Wexler has breathed liberal fire.  Of course, he bought into the pretense that Social Security is broken and in danger of collapsing, because outside of that frame one couldn't be part of the debate.  But once he'd done that, he made the best move possible by releasing a detailed study of how Social Security could be fixed by eliminating the cap on payroll taxes that currently makes income above $90,000 tax free.  And Wexler helped win the debate, holding off the destruction of Social Security, while the cap on taxes still remains.

Wexler's fire breathing also breathed new life into the impeachment movement last year, which has only stalled (though it's far from over) because too many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee refuse to listen to their constituents the way Wexler does.  Publicly lobbying your colleagues and the chairman of your committee to do something that has been publicly opposed by your party's leaders, the other party's leaders, and the corporate media is almost unheard of.  But Wexler did it when he asked his colleagues and ordinary citizens to join him in pushing for the start of impeachment hearings.  Wexler made new and brilliant arguments for impeachment and presented a case that won over some congress members and a lot of other people.  Thus far, 235,000 people have signed his petition at

 

http://davidswanson.org

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 
Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments