If Dems fight Nuclear Option, maybe some good can come from it

War Powers Act of 1973 www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

and budget process http://www.house.gov/rules/96-912.htm

could end up having the Iraq War appropriations being 'held hostage'
if for the reason of the 'nuclear option' the Democrats specifically target appropriations for furthering the undeclared 'War in Iraq'.

We could in other words force the Repubs to bring the boys home. Soon.

Interesting notion. If so many of the elected Dems were not so void of imagination, or desperate to proove that they are in support of the war(s), the idea you posit here could work.

I think we have to work harder to communicate to certain ranking Senators and Representatives in the DP, that the DLC and the NDN is dead wrong, and to clearly disassociate themsevles from the likes of Al From and Marshall, et al.

Here's an excerpt from an article that really cuts to the chase on who these people are, published in the March 21st edition of Nation (posted in full at Radio left website:
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/RadioLeft/_archives/2005/3/4/397104.html )

"After Kerry's defeat, the DLC promised to "avoid the circular firing squad" mentality but then quickly broke the promise, reverting to its favorite target: the Democratic base. Instead of labor unions and feminists, the DLC fixated on MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. "We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore," the DLC wrote on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, of all places. "What leftist elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon," the DLC's Will Marshall wrote in Blueprint, the group's magazine, in a rant worthy of The Weekly Standard. "Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left." The DLC continued this vitriol into March.

Such attacks put the DLC back on the front page--a fact that speaks to one of its ongoing sources of strength. For Washington journalists, the DLC is an ideal organization, frequently critical and readily accessible. Privately, DLC staffers complain that only controversy will bring coverage. A fat Rolodex, the product of years spent mingling with journalists, gives the DLC an illusion of real power. The New York Times and Washington Post mentioned or quoted the DLC 200 times during the electoral season, forty more mentions than the Club for Growth, a leading player in the right-wing movement. "

elsewhere in the article:

"All eight candidates for whom Clinton campaigned in 2004 lost. Nevertheless, the DLC has adopted Clinton's triangulation tactics on national security, economic policies and family values for the "Heartland Strategy" it's developing to help Democrats win in the red states. What Daily Show comedian Lewis Black said recently of Democrats in general is true in spades for the DLC: "Sometimes the devil you know is better than winning."


"In 2002 the DLC supported privatizing Social Security. Now it's opposed. Evan Bayh, a likely presidential contender in 2008, bucked his fellow New Democrats and voted against the nominations of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. "We're not trying to impose litmus tests," says DLC policy director Ed Kilgore, a more conciliatory figure than From or Marshall. "It's a little daunting to always be called Republican-lite." Younger DLC members privately say they'll become more involved only when From retires. Quietly, the DLC has been offering "value-based" training for Democratic officials for the past seven years.


Full Text go to:
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/RadioLeft/_archives/2005/3/4/397104.html