There has been a solid debate on Calitics about Jerry McNerney as of late — and we are far from the only place this has taken place. Tomorrow evening, that’s Friday at 6pm, PT, Jerry McNerney will be back, again live blogging at FDL. Mark your calendars.

After participating in some of the lengthy discussions on Jerry McNerney’s Iraq occupation quotes in WaPo and DailyKos, I felt compelled to put up my own thoughts in a post here.  If you feel like more of this, please follow below the fold.

First things first:  there are other issues besides quotes in the media about the occupation of Iraq.  First of all, there are all of Jerry’s votes in Iraq.  Someone else besides me–I think it was kid oakland, and I for some reason can’t find the post–made a list of all of Jerry’s votes about Iraq.  Except for McGovern, they were exactly what we would want and expect.  And Jerry had his own reasons for the McGovern bill that he explained to me in an interview with me when I went to DC.

Now, this doesn’t mean that how Jerry is quoted in major beltway media outlets isn’t important.  It is, especially when it seems like he’s flip-flopping to cater to two different audiences.  If nothing else, we like consistency in our politicians.

But we have to remember two things.  First of all, Jerry is a freshman incumbent who doesn’t have very much experience with media and wasn’t a politician to begin with.  And secondly, especially given the grumbling complaints that a few of us have expressed with Jerry’s staff in DC, the message his staff seems to be trying to create for him will only serve to amplify the complaints about how Jerry deals with interactions in the media.

That said, I think that we in the netroots tend to take a much bigger focus on the media than anyone else in the country does because that’s what we’re all about as an enterprise.  One of the main raisons d’etre of our entire movement is media accountability, which leads us to place an excessive amount of attention to anything said and done in traditional political media establishments such as the Washington Post.  So a centrist-style flip-flop in the Washington Post will alienate us a great deal, but I can just about guarantee you that it’s not what the average voter in Lodi and Stockton is living and dying on.

All this talk about removing Jerry from ActBlue pages or other stuff is insane, in my book.  The only reason anybody is even contemplating it is because, well, we all put a lot of work into Jerry’s campaign.  That’s true.  But because of all the effort we put in, we put Jerry on a pedestal that perhaps no candidate belongs being on.  He became a netroots hero,  primarily because of the contrast between him and Richard Pombo.  And there still is that huge contrast, and a few quotes out of context in the Washington Post written by a reporter who is intentionally trying to push a “Dems in disarray” storyline isn’t going to change that.

But expecting someone–especially a freshman with little political experience–to say and do the right thing every single time is a bit naive, especially in the face of DC staff who might be pushing messaging that we in the netroots would be opposed to.  And it’s especially not going to happen in a district that still leans Republican and which the NRCC has identified as one of their top targets.

Finally, there are so many issues at work here besides the occupation of Iraq.  There is the problem of health insurance.  Energy and environment (where Jerry has been an extremely strong leader, statewide and nationwide).  Restoring the constitution.

I think, honestly, that we should hold the “we’ve been betrayed” talk for a time when we’ve actually been betrayed.  Jerry will have his disagreements with us on a few issues.  But hey–imagine if any of us ran for Congress.  We disagree with each other a lot of the time, and if any of us ran for office we would have wide areas of agreement with each other on the vast majority of issues, but we would have disagreements on strategy a great deal of time.

Bottom line is, hanging Jerry out to dry because of some quotes in the Washington Post is a horrible idea.  If anything, Jerry needs on-the-job training on how to deal with media, because the truth is, he wants to end the occupation of Iraq.  And the other truth is that we need Republicans to help us end the occupation of Iraq.  I think it’s naive to believe, as Jerry apparently does, that they’ll willingly come to the table without more strong-arm tactics.  But if you take what Jerry actually said–namely, that sometimes we don’t agree with the Democratic leadership, and that we need Republican help to end the occupation–both of those are true.  How often have we on the blogs said, “what the heck are they doing, anyway?”

The only difference is that we don’t go saying that crap to reporters at the Post who are out to hurt our efforts.

Last point:  I’d like everyone to think about the storyline that would be created by a public abandonment of Jerry because of some Washington Post quotes.  I don’t think it’s a good one.

Oh Jerry McNerney.  What is to be done with you?  Frankly, I am saddened about this whole thing.  It has been clear that all of our work to create communications channels about your Iraq positioning was for naught.  Many a blog post has been written, warning you to take a strong stance on withdrawing from Iraq or face the loss of the blogosphere’s support.  In fact, you heeded our calls to do exactly that.  You were praised here and across the blogosphere.  Finally, it appeared that you were living up to your campaign promises.

But only hours later came this article in the WaPo.  There are so many things wrong with this story and your role in its creation that it is hard to know where to start.  The entire premise of the article is that the Democrats are in disarray.  After all of the work done this summer to divide up the Republicans, we are now undoing all of our gains through these articles.  Repeat with me, “the bloodiest summer yet”.  Just check out this lede:

Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq’s diverse political factions.

I am no foreign policy or Iraq expert.  What I can say is that the Democrats are screwing up the messaging in their attempts not to appear against the troops.  But that’s what Obama, Edwards and Clinton have been screwing up on.  You take a different tact to blow up the national strategy for Iraq: declare the Republicans reasonable, announce your desire to negotiate with them for a timetable and undercut the Democratic leadership.  It’s a trifecta on a day when you appeared to mend fences.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents “setting the record straight.”

“I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date,” he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

“We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning,” he said, adding, “I don’t know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they’ve done things that are beyond me.”

Answer me this, what is possibly gained from trying to negotiate with the Republicans about a specific timeline for withdrawal when they are trying to keep the war going on indefinitely?  Negotiating over a specific timetable can and will occur when we have enough votes for a timetable in the first place.  We don’t have that yet.  What exactly do you mean Jerry, when you say that we need to stop being partisan about our withdrawal resolutions?  You can’t possibly be suggesting that we agree to the “moderate” Republican demands for a non-binding timetable.  What the heck do you think you or the fight to end the war will gain by attacking the Democratic leadership in the Washington Post?  They have bent over backwards to ensure you have an excellent shot to retain your seat, despite the concerted efforts of the Republicans to target you.  I would argue that they have been more timid than I would like in terms of ending this war, not too much.

You were supposed to be our Mr. Smith goes to Washington and be a fighter to end this war, not some squishy person in the middle attacking both sides.  You have listened to what we have to say, but it has done little good.  I am at a loss of what to do.  More talking has clearly not been productive.  I am curious about what the community here thinks should happen.  You seem to have hung our friend Eden out to dry here, but more than that, you tried to pander to us and then undermined the entire movement to end the war.  This one hurts and I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there must be consequences.

Jerry McNerney clarifies today’s WaPo story in tomorrow’s WaPo: (emphasis added)

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents “setting the record straight.”

“I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date,” he wrote on his Web site.

But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq. He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

“We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning,” he said, adding, “I don’t know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they’ve done things that are beyond me.”

Crossposted at The Progressive Connection

I was going to put this in a Quick Hit, but it’s such an important issue that I thought it should get a wider distribution.  Good for Jerry McNerney for calling B.S. on his OWN visit to Iraq and understanding that the dog-and-pony Congressional delegations only provide a brief glimpse into conditions on the ground.  McNerney highlights the excellent NY Times op-ed by returning soldiers, and renews his commitment to bringing our troops home from Iraq on a timeline with a firm end date.

You can thank McNerney for his courage and insight at his blog.  I’ve excerpted a large portion of the email he sent to supporters on the flip.

A few weeks ago, I was honored to lead a bipartisan, all-freshman Congressional delegation to Iraq to gain a deeper understanding of the conflict. As I discovered, it’s one thing to read about what’s going on there. But it’s quite another to witness it firsthand and experience it personally.

I came away from this profound experience tremendously moved by the commitment of our brave men and women in uniform as well as the perseverance of the Iraqi people. Although I was proud to lead this delegation and personally meet with our troops, the trip was brief and limited to the locations picked by the military ahead of time.

For a grounded perspective on the war from those who are on the front lines, I urge you to read this critical first-hand account in the New York Times by a group of infantrymen just returning from serving in the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq:

New York Times Op-Ed: “The War as We Saw It”

As the poignant and piercing words of these seven soldiers demonstrates, the unfortunate reality in Iraq is that — while our troops have performed extremely well under very difficult conditions — the Bush Administration’s planning and execution of the war continues to be an abysmal failure.

Our women and men laying their lives on the line in Iraq have done everything we have asked of them. To honor their service, they deserve leaders who respect them enough to ask the tough questions, and — when something isn’t working — not only acknowledge it, but fundamentally change course.

In September, Congress will be participating in perhaps the most critical discussion of this conflict since it began in 2003. My campaign web site has been receiving increasing amounts of email from concerned citizens curious about my stance on the war. So, as we approach this pivotal debate, I want to clearly and unequivocally express to you where I stand on the question of executing a responsible redeployment from Iraq:

I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date (“date certain”) and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an “open-ended” timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.

As many foreign policy experts agree, setting a date certain for withdrawal is fundamental to forcing George W. Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq and ensuring the Iraqis step up and defend their own country. That’s why — even as I consider all proposals as a matter of due diligence — I am standing strong on setting a definite redeployment end date (as an example, I recently voted for the “Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act” to safely draw down our troops over the course of nine months).

As this national debate begins anew, I am counting on you to stand strong with me as well. The only way that we, together, can bring this unfortunate chapter in our history to a close is if we remain united and steadfast in our collective commitment.

Back on July 30, Jerry McNerney, on his way home from a weekend visit to Iraq, held a conference call with reporters. Shocked by the ensuing quotes from the Congressman, I publicly questioned his commitment to the ideals he espoused during his campaign in 2006. Now, the quotes were all over the map, depending on which newspaper you read, but the one that started to show up the most reliably in the following days was from the AP story entitled “Democrats Praise Military Progress:

California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he’ll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.

“I’m more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,” McNerney said.

In that single quote, McNerney seemed to be simultaneously backing off of both a timeline with a concrete ending date AND spouting Republican talking points.

That’s why I was relieved to receive an email from the McNerney campaign today setting the record straight. Here is McNerney’s statement:

I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date (“date certain”) and uses clearly-defined benchmarks. I am not in favor of an “open-ended” timeline for withdrawal, as some members of Congress have proposed recently.

As many foreign policy experts agree, setting a date certain for withdrawal is fundamental to forcing George W. Bush to bring our troops home from Iraq and ensuring the Iraqis step up and defend their own country. That’s why — even as I consider all proposals as a matter of due diligence — I am standing strong on setting a definite redeployment end date (as an example, I recently voted for the “Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act” to safely draw down our troops over the course of nine months).

More on the flip…

Additionally, McNerney urged his supporters to read last weekend’s op-ed in the New York Times, The War As We Saw It, written by seven returning troop members. Based on their shared on-the-ground experiences, these soldiers were able to offer penetrating insights:

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense. […]

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux. […]

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run. […]

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

After wondering just what to make of McNerney’s confusing and seemingly contradictory positions over the last three weeks, it’s a relief to finally have a clear and concise statement of where Jerry McNerney stands on the Iraq occupation. I imagine that all his supporters are grateful for the clarification. If you’d like to comment directly to McNerney, you can post a comment at his blog.

Cross posted at The Progressive Connection