Anyone who follows Wisconsin politics knows that Dave Obey has a notoriously short fuse. Anyone who follows Wisconsin politics also knows that the 18-term congressman from Wisconsin's 7th District is one of the most principled and authentic public servants in the country. Thirty-seven years in the U.S. House of Representatives may not have softened his legendary temper, but neither has it eroded his dogged commitment to building a more responsible and transparent federal government.
This makes it all the more surprising that anti-war activists decided to initiate a hostile confrontation with him of all people. In a clip that has circulated on YouTube, two activists corral Obey outside his congressional office and demand that he vote against the House's supplemental appropriations bill, which provides funding for troops in Iraq.
Obey responds that voting against the bill would not end the war but would cut off the funding necessary to keep the troops safe. After several minutes of back-and-forth, Obey begins swearing at ""idiot liberals"" and suggests that one of the activists is ""smoking something that isn't legal.""
Though Obey apologized for his outburst a few days later, it is the activists who should be apologizing for senselessly alienating one of their strongest supporters.
First of all, few political figures besides Obey would have indulged these people for more than 30 seconds, let alone over six minutes. And surely no one but Obey would have given them such a frank and honest exchange without once dodging a question or resorting to artificial, canned rhetoric.
For example, when one of the activists suggests that Congress should ""fully fund the withdrawal of the troops,"" Obey replies incredulously, ""That makes no sense!"" If you're looking for genuine straight-talk in politics, the man from Wausau is where it's at.
What he should have explained more clearly was that the bill in question—which the House approved last week—provides $122 billion to support the troops in Iraq, and it includes a binding requirement of troop withdrawal by the end of August 2008. The bill funds things like body armor for the troops, repair and maintenance of military equipment and expansion of health care for veterans.
Simply cutting off funding for the war, as the activists propose, is impossible because there aren't enough votes in the House and Senate to override President Bush's certain veto of such a measure. Even if it were possible, it would likely lead to a reckless game of ""chicken"" between the president and Congress, with each side gambling that public opinion will blame the other side for leaving troops in the field without safety equipment.
Obey's bill turns up the political pressure on Bush, who must decide whether to sign it, thus ending his blank-check authority on the war, or veto it and deal with the political fallout from an increasingly unpopular occupation—to say nothing of delaying passage of the needed funding. That is how Congress functions as a co-equal branch of government, not the presidential rubber-stamp it was for the last decade.
Obey should have explained this without losing his temper. The woman in the video clip is the mother of a Marine suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after two tours in Iraq, and her frustration with the war is completely understandable. Nevertheless, the activists should have done their homework before antagonizing the very individual who is most committed to—and most in a position to—help their cause.
Dave Obey has lost neither his passion for accountable government, nor the rough edges which allow him to speak plainly without sugar-coating reality. His fiscally disciplined stewardship of the House Appropriations Committee and his principled work to end two disastrous wars—30 years ago in Vietnam and today in Iraq—put him in the pantheon of great Wisconsin progressives.
Without question, his temper has gotten the best of him on several occasions. But he is a good man to have on your side in a political fight, not just because of his fighting skills but because his side is usually the right one. If anti-war activists don't realize that, they must be smoking grassroots.
