We remind ourselves all the time that TrueMajority exists to be a service to our members, to help them increase their involvement in moving our government and nation toward progressive values. When we found ourselves, like the staff of other pro-peace organizations, tied up in knots over whether to support the House Democrats’ “half a loaf” bill setting a deadline for Iraq withdrawal, we eventually remembered that.
Here’s the transcript of our discussion this morning:

Matt [Matt Holland, Online Director]: Darcy and I have been debating the supplemental. As expected, the Approps cmte passed their version last night, will go to full house next week.

Matt: The prog plan (money only for withdrawal) failed unanimously in committee, and even “out now” folks voted for the Pelosi plan (except Barbara Lee) saying it was the best step for now.

Matt: but, our member poll shows that as of last week our folks liked “no money” better than “pelosi plan” [ed. note: see poll results, below]
darcy [Darcy Scott Martin, Political Director]: i think the loss in the senate put more pressure on the ds in the house to move something forward

Matt: One option is to hold fire entirely, send no alert.

brian [Brian Sant, Online Organizer]: our members have worked hard on this issue we can’t just not say anything about the supplemental

bkroetz [Ben Kroetz, Campaign / Field Director]: i agree we need to say something

darcy: we gotta respond to the survey

brian: yesterday we were all about NO on the supplemental, despite what move on and others were doing

brian: but now, because of the press that this is a dem victory, we are rethinking that. so, are we serving our members, or serving the press?

darcy: our mems often agree the press is wrong

brian: in any case would we want to adjust our political message to reach more members? if so, we should just adopt the republicans

Matt: we are not selling OUR message to people.

darcy: we could write something on this and launch the link discussing all the aspects of the issue and allowing folks to comment

Matt: discussion page already exists, just needs writing in it.

brian: darcy, if the sup passes, is the deadline for withdrawal firm? will it really happen? or are there loopholes like with the murtha stuff?

darcy: there are a million ways the administration could get around that date, but at least it sets some kind of a marker

brian: right, i get that. that’s what makes this so damn complicated

brian: i think the press and everyone else has forgotten one thing: if this passes, sure there is a ‘timeline’ for withdrawal, but until then, we can send tens of thousands of troops to dieand that timeline may not really happen

Matt: It’s not like that. It’s about getting more and more of Congress on board so the next bill is better, and eventually we really cut off the money.

brian: so lets tell our members that

Footnote:

A poll this week of TrueMajority members on strategies for dealing with this supplemental war funding bill came out like this:

40%: Supported the plan of progressive Representatives, which would make sure that any new money for the war could only be spent for safely bringing our troops home and rebuilding Iraq. [this option failed in the House committee, 64-0]

35%: Felt Congress should reject the President’s request for $100 billion more in war funding, no matter what.

24%: Agreed with Speaker Pelosi’s plan, the one which made it out of committee yesterday.