I have to say... (4.00 / 1)

I'm sorely disappointed by Patrick Murphy's vote yesterday. He'd been good on everything up until that. I was thinking of firing off an email to his congressional office, but I decided against it. I suppose everyone is allowed their mistakes, but having spent lots of time canvassing in Bucks County, I can't imagine that the Petraeus ad was something that would have been a political liability for him.

---

by: PsiFighter37 @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 14:34:32 PM CDT

You should do it anyways (4.00 / 1)

At least when people write to them they know they are being watched.

Congress people are funny - with all of the access to info we have on the Internet, it seems many of them think they can play politics and slip things under the radar.

If people like congressman Murphy get enough emails, it might make him think twice about votes like that, and that he needs to worry about HIS base, not the republican's base or political aspirations.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:32:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The door swings both ways (4.00 / 2)

If these Dems keep it up, I guarantee they can be defeated by the same folks who helped them win their upset victories. They take far too much for granted.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 14:46:59 PM CDT

Yeah, (4.00 / 1)

as much as I dislike Donnelly, today I perked up when he all of a sudden showed up on MSNBC to talk about a new bill. I sat there rapt, pretty excited, until I found out it was a bill for freakin' airlines to make "child friendly" sections where kids can't see movies that Mom and Dad don't want them to.

Christ on a crutch, I spent all those hours working so he could spend his time on that crap? Ain't happening a second time.

---

by: Paddy @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:10:27 PM CDT

spot on (0.00 / 0)

he seems to favor feel good bills. like about saving dogs, horses and whatnot. i support those also. but he doesnt seem to give a shit about humans. he will have to have a radial change in his actions to get me to work for him again.  he is better than chocola, barely. moveon gave him a 10 point lead with their red hand ad in 2006, he managed to lose some of it. we will see.

---

by: breid1903 @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:09:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't Think, or Just Plain Don't? (4.00 / 1)

Maybe it's that they just plain don't need us any more.

Think about it. Lots of these guys and gals replaced Bush Dog Republicans. They took our money and quickly became Bush Dog Democrats for the reasons laid out above.

Now, what's to stop someone who wins a primary challenge and a seat at the table with our money and our support from doing the same thing that these people did?

Not much.

The votes against issues that they were elected on is dividing us, and I think this is Dem leadership giving us a big FU. And it's not just Freshman -- the FU is given to us on votes like Hans von Spakovsky and other FEC candidates going through to a floor vote.

So do we continue to fund candidates who will likely kowtow to money and establishment? Or do we go after the hearts and minds of average Americans on issues? Personally, I think an issue or an idea is less likely to bite us in the back than a politician.

---

by: wanderindiana @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:23:05 PM CDT

Fundraising E-mail from Paul Hodes TODAY (4.00 / 2)

The definition of irony:

I just got this from Paul Hodes today - THE DAY AFTER his MoveOn.org condemnation vote:

-- cut here --
Hi,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in the hopes that you can continue your support for my campaign. This week has been extremely busy- this Sunday, September 30th, is end of the 3rd financial quarter and my campaign needs to raise an additional $25,000 to meet our goal. It is very important that we finish out strong, and I am counting on your support to meet this challenge. Anything you could do by September 30th would be extremely helpful for me to continue the work I am doing in Congress. Can you help by making a contribution at www.hodesforcongress.com and reach out to friends and family on my behalf?

Thank you for your help and guidance. For more contribution information or if you know someone who you would like us to reach out to personally, please contact Chris Anderson at 603-731-7840 or chris@hodesforcongress.com

Yours,

Paul Hodes

p.s. Please contribute today at www.hodesforcongress.com

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-- cut here --

I, of course, responded with:

-- cut here --

Sorry - but you've seen the last money from me.  You bite the hand that feeds you (voting FOR a resolution condemning MoveOn.org while our young men and women of the armed forces are DYING in Iraq) and the VERY NEXT F*CKING DAY, you ask for food (money) from that hand?!

You sir, have some balls.

http://www.openleft....

Take me off your e-mail distribution list.  You're wasting your time, money and effort.  If you get a primary opponent, you can trust that I'll be responding to every one of his requests for money though.

-- cut here --

---

by: kautrey @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:27:42 PM CDT

You should write a cordial letter (0.00 / 0)

and state that you were disappointed with his vote and as a result you are not going to financially support him.

This will let him know there are consequences for his legislative actions.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:35:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so how do we put them on notice? (0.00 / 0)

we can't (and shouldn't) primary challenge everybody?

-C.

---

by: neutron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:27:42 PM CDT

The MoveOn Ad Controversy (0.00 / 0)

Why can't we, as liberals, acknowledge, at least to ourselves, that while the substantive claims made in the Betray Us ad may have been true, the "Betray Us" headline in the ad was unwise?  Why can't we acknowledge, at least to ourselves, that the ad was a tactical error?

Indeed, the ad was far more than a tactical error; it has been a tactical catastrophe.

The Betray Us ad has provided valuable "bulletin board material" to our political adversaries and allowed them to avoid the really important questions about the war.  Instead, it has allowed our political adversaries to "waive the bloody shirt" of generals (and by extension, soldiers) who they contend (with some merit) are being called traitors.

The media has eaten this up. Is it unfair the way the media has harped on this?  Yes.  But as professionals, we need to be able to anticipate how our adversaries will portray what we do.  And we need to anticipate how the media will be manipulated into doing their bidding.

It is somewhat forgivable, I suppose, that MoveOn didn't anticipate the outcry that would ensue from the ad and how that outcry would harm our cause.  What is NOT forgivable, however, is that MoveOn refuses to acknowledge the mistake that was made.  Unless we recognize our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them over and over again, handing the swords to our adversaries that they will use to impale us.

As for Members and Senators who vote to condemn the ad, let's give them a break.  I'm as left-wing as one gets in our political system.  But even I would be tempted to express disapproval of tactics that label those who disagree with us ... indeed, even those who spin the truth ... as betrayers and traitors.

We opposed conservatives using those sort of tactics against us when we opposed the invasion of Iraq or when we opposed stifling civil service protections of Department of Homeland Security workers.  We shouldn't use them, ourselves.

I hope that MoveOn and we learn something from this episode.

---

by: DemLobbyist @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:33:50 PM CDT

I disagree in part (4.00 / 3)

Why can't we acknowledge, at least to ourselves, that the ad was a tactical error?

The ad was hard-hitting, truthful, and to the point.

If "our" guys had stood their ground said, "Well, it's true!" instead of giving ground to the republicans and pundits it would have been even better.

Regardless, MoveOn.org had one of their best ever days for fundraising as a result so in that sense it was very effective.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:39:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

tactical mistake (4.00 / 1)

One mistake is not justified by a previous one. How does condemning Democrats and not Republicans help the country?


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:47:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Enabling (4.00 / 2)

"No son, it's my fault.  I shouldn't have made your father angry.  You know how he gets. Maybe these bruises will remind me to be more respectful in the future."

Barry

---

by: barryr @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 16:01:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

I'm in agreement with you, but it's swimming upstream around here.

Many folks are bound and determined to continue to believe that MoveOn, or Democrats, or liberals were condemned by these resolutions -- but they weren't.

All either resolution did was condemn/repudiate the "personal attack(s)" on General Petraeus by MoveOn. MoveOn itself was not condemned, nor were its members; neither were Democrats or liberals or progressives.

This is not semantics; this is what the resolutions say.

And 'betray' is a loaded word in the context of an armed forces general; it should not have been used.

---

by: Ron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 16:30:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The ad and the resolution(s)... (4.00 / 2)

  ...were two different things.

  One can have whatever opinion one wants to about the ad itself. The Republicans chose to use it to launch one of their typical fits of phony outrage. Absolutely predictable behavior from them.

  But the Democrats didn't have to indulge them. No Democrat had to endorse the ad if he or she didn't want to -- a simple, "It's MoveOn's ad. Why don't you ask THEM about it?" would have sufficed. The Republicans are good at repeating the same robotic soundbites to the media, over and over; there's no reason the Democrats couldn't do that.

  So the Republicans and the beltway media would have whined and bleated and bellyached day after day after day, but the public would have eventually tired of them and moved on. (The beltway media <> the public.) But then the Democrats had the bright idea of injecting new life into the story with the silly resolutions (funny how they never called for one after, say, Colin Powell's lie-a-thon to the UN in 2003), and in the process alienated many of their most reliable supporters. And the benefits that these resolutions yielded to the Democrats were...

  As one local congressional candidate (an Iraq veteran) told me this past weekend, "Maybe MoveOn shot the Dems in the foot. But the Dems seemed to think they had to shoot their other foot to balance it out."

  Again, whatever one thinks of the ad, what exactly was the value added provided by those resolutions? Will the Republicans now stop talking about the ad?  Will cows sprout feathers?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:37:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But the text of the resolution does matter (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you on the substance of this. And had I been in Congress, I would have voted 'No' on these resolutions, emphatically stating that Congress has no business condemning anyone's speech, period. Moreover, I would have gone to town on what moral cowards the Republicans were for voting against giving troops dwell time, and instead focusing on political gamesmanship.

And I think it's fair to ask why the netroots/Blue Majority candidates couldn't get together and come up with a strategy to combat this nonsense. They should be asked to explain themselves.

But the people to blame here are Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Emanuel -- the leadership. You are absolutely right that they could have prevented this whole fracas from happening.

My overall point is that we need MORE people in Congress that are like who we elected in 2006, and lots more. If this nonsense and the subsequent unfortunate vote is what divides and emasculates liberal netroots progressives, establishmentarianism has won big-time again.

I'm not going to tell individuals who to volunteer or give their hard earned money to. But I've seen hysterical reactions from people that these resolutions condemned MoveOn, and they simply did not. They condemned one specific message that the leadership of MoveOn foolishly (IMO) employed. Stupid resolutions? Yes, yes, yes. But, forest, trees, please. Or baby, bathwater.

---

by: Ron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 18:01:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That argument is weak, in my opinion (0.00 / 0)

I disagree that the text of the resolution matters at all--the whole thing is meaningless non-binding garbage.  The important products are the headline on Google News and the setup for the attack ads.

I don't buy that somebody on the teevee's going to pick nits next October and say, "Well actually, MoveOn the organization wasn't censured by the Senate, only one particular newspaper advertisement was."

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:30:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dems Didn't Call for the Resolution (0.00 / 0)

First of all, Democrats didn't OFFER the resolution.  It was offered by Republicans.  Democrats had to vote one way or the other on it.  I don't know why we would ask Democrats to fall on their swords for a symbolic vote that essentially objected to calling a General a traitor.

What did those who voted FOR the amendment criticizing the ad gain?  Well... when attacked, they can now say "I object to calling the General a traitor, too.  Now, let's move on and talk about substance..."

Second, there is nothing that House Democratic Leadership could have done to avoid the vote.  The House rules permit the minority to offer a motion to recommit on legislation.  There isn't really a way to prevent such a motion from being offered.  And surely, you wouldn't want Senator Reid to launch a filibuster against a sense of the Senate amendment being offered to a Defense Authorization bill.  What kind of optics would THAT display?

Third, if it was so PREDICTABLE that Republicans would do what they have done in the wake of the Betray Us ad, why wouldn't sophisticated political professionals have taken steps to inoculate themselves from the "predictable" actions of the GOP by structuring the text of the ad so that it was PURELY about substance rather than making it an ad that engaged in name-calling?

Let's face it.  The "professionals" at MoveOn.org blew it.  Now... Why don't WE acknowledge that, move on, and hope that our friends at MoveOn.org have learned from their mistake of giving their adversaries a sword.

MoveOn.org is an important, useful entity.  It has done wonderful work.  I continue to value it and support it.  I just think that it doesn't make sense for them to offer our adversaries armor-coated ammunition that they can use to marginalize the organization in the minds of middle America and turn it into an organization that is thought of as a hate-America, hate-the-military fringe group?  Why do we want that?

I abhor the crocodile tears that the GOP has been shedding.  They are phony.  But let's be smart and sophisticated enough to preempt such tactics by not offering them sacrificial swords!

DemLobbyist

---

by: DemLobbyist @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:43:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would help... (0.00 / 0)

...if the Democratic-controlled Congress refrained from passing resolutions which fairly specifically charge MoveOn with being "a hate-America, hate-the-military fringe group", wouldn't it?  That kind of reputation does tend to diminish an organization's effectiveness, as you point out.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:17:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How do we protect ourselves (0.00 / 0)

The real question is how do we get respect from the people we put in office? I personally put about $2,000 in the hands of people who voted against MoveOn, and who voted against so many other issues of war, FISA and other matters (and another $1000 to people who didn't win) I bet they aren't voting against the corporate PACs who gave them money.  So, what are they doing I'm not?

---

by: masaccio @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:44:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it's that easy to slap an amendment... (0.00 / 0)

  ...then it should be a no-brainer for someone to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for his latest insult to ALL troops, no? Any plans for that happening? Why not?

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 21:54:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

re: Dems Didn't Call for the Resolution (0.00 / 0)

"Democrats had to vote one way or the other on it." 

Sooo ... I guess you are not one of the expert strategists who spent 2005/06 telling us ignorant amateurs to support any and all D candidates, regardless of their political pedigrees or ideological tendencies, b/c once the Ds secured a congressional majority, all those evil, R bills would never see the floor?

And (while I'm at it) another thing: if your criteron for sound political tactics is never to say anything the Rs can exploit in a corrupt mass media environment to fuel a phoney "controversy," that would mean the practical abdication of effective political opposition.  Oh, wait ...

"sophisticated political professionals have taken steps to inoculate themselves from the "predictable" actions of the GOP by structuring the text of the ad so that it was PURELY about substance rather than making it an ad that engaged in name-calling?"

Yeah, that's the way!  B/c it worked so well for Al Gore and John Kerry! 

---

by: JTL @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 12:37:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, please... (4.00 / 2)

I'm so tired of things like this:

"Instead, it has allowed our political adversaries to "waive the bloody shirt" of generals (and by extension, soldiers) who they contend (with some merit) are being called traitors."

Show me where in the ad MoveOn called Petreus, soldiers, the military, you, me, my nonexistent cat, anyone or anything dead or alive or noncarbon-based a traitor. 

That is simply right-wing spin of the ad, and the Democrats and the media and many others were spun.  I'm not surprised by the Democrats and I'm not surprised by the media but I am surprised by how many lefties here and elsewhere are saying that that's what MoveOn did.  A simple reading of the ad shows otherwise.

The truth is that the right-wing will spin and attack anything we say, so it needs to be pointed out, again and again, that that's what they're doing.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 18:38:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, Please? A Response... (0.00 / 0)

Well...

The first definition of "Betray" in dictionary.com is "to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country."

I think a plain and reasonable interpretation of the ad COULD well be that it was calling the General a traitor.

DemLobbyist

---

by: DemLobbyist @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:52:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Furthermore (0.00 / 0)

The definition of traitor:

1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Martha just doesn't want to see it.

---

by: Ron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:56:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Given that the ad doesn't use the word "traitor"... (0.00 / 0)

I thought I'd post some definitions of the word "betray," which the ad does use:

1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country. 
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust. 
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends. 
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret. 
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity. 
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern. 
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly. 
8. to seduce and desert. 

I especially like #8 myself.  But is the word "traitor" anywhere?  So how can MoveOn be calling him a traitor when they did not use the word and did not call him anything?

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:21:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My last $.02 on this (0.00 / 0)

The first definition of traitor is "someone who betrays"; the MoveOn ad says he's likely to become General Betray Us. It's not at all tortured to read that as saying the General is going to be a traitor if he follows through on his testimony.

My main argument with your characterization is that those that see it my way are somehow succumbing to right-wing spin or framing on this. No way.

I don't have any real interest in having us talk past each other on this; people disagree in politics, that's fine. But I promise you I have very strong, progressive views and ideas on the majority of issues, and that my views of how things look don't come from right wing noise.  I don't think MoveOn's intent was to call him a traitor, but I think the ad can very logically be read that way.

More to the point, you guys on the other side of this issue reject out of hand that such a reading is possible and seem outraged that people in Congress voted for this. It's your right to be disappointed or upset about this vote if it violates your sense of what the honorable or right action was, but I don't understand at all how these votes are somehow the betrayal of 2007.

---

by: Ron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:59:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

It's not at all tortured to read that as saying the General is going to be a traitor if he follows through on his testimony.

Yes, but only if his testimony to Congress isn't entirely truthful.  That's the whole point.  Are we supposed to be too afraid to ask that question whenever someone puts on a uniform?

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 21:12:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not at all (0.00 / 0)

I think MoveOn's ad was spot on in terms of the substance of the debate about the 'Surge' ... just leave out the Betray(al) stuff. Those are loaded words, and we on the left have been rightly complaining about the attempts to silence dissent by invoking words like sedition, treason, traitor, etc.

Criticize the man, absolutely -- and more importantly, pin it right back on Bush and the congressional Republicans. But remember, his job is to do what the President tells him, or quit. I think it's absolutely fair to question his objectivity, his 2004 op-eds, etc. But don't question his commitment to his country.

I understand this is going to sound a bit too cute by half, sort of dancing around certain words, but it has to be done. Why even go near the words when the truth is on your side?

This was always about the media battle, MoveOn's ad. Those that ran it should have understood that they risked obliterating their own message by using that loaded description and pun. And, look, if the worst thing that happens in this fracas is that MoveOn raises money and gets more recruits, that's not a bad outcome -- they'll come through next year. But I would rather have seen them concentrate their fire on the policy, not the man.

[And just to be clear, now that this stupid precedent has been set, the Dems in both houses of Congress must absolutely introduce amendments to the same bill condemning Rush Limbaugh. Pat Murphy and Jim Webb should introduce them.]

---

by: Ron @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 21:39:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I completely agree with your last point, but... (0.00 / 0)

If I saying you're lying (which I'm not, by the way), clearly that's different from saying that you're a liar.  If I say the latter, that's calling you something, as in you are that kind of person.  If I say the former, that's saying what you're doing at that moment, not who you are in general.  To call someone something is to say that that is who they are, beyond that moment, and it means that one has used words like "You are x."

That's why I object when people say that MoveOn called Petraeus a traitor.  They never said that that is who or what he is; they said that he would become General Betray Us if he lied to Congress--as in a future conditional which is dependent upon his future actions if those actions are consistent with his previous ones, which the ad documents are to lie. In fact, I think an argument could be made that to say that MoveOn said that Petraeus is a traitor is a tacit admission that he lied to Congress, an admission that I suspect you would make but I doubt the right wing would.

And I bet that even if MoveOn hadn't used the word "betray," and had run the rest of the ad as is, the right wing would still be feigning outrage that they had called him a traitor.  The Democrats need to grow a spine.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 22:32:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Congress is too afraid to ask that question (0.00 / 0)

Either that, or they support the policy and support the telling of lies which allow it to continue--one or the other as the case may be for particular members.

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 22:32:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The ad doesn't call him anything (4.00 / 2)

It starts with a question: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"  It then states that he is "a military man constantly at war with the facts," and demonstrates, factually, why that is true.  It then ends with the statement: "Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."  Likely to become.  Not is.

And what would make him become General Betray Us rather than be General Petraeus?  According to the ad, it's by not telling the truth.  But the ad doesn't say that that's what he is; he himself becomes it, in the future, only by lying, which is his doing, his actions, not by the ad calling him anything.

And furthermore, that's a far cry from your original statement, which is that the ad "...has allowed our political adversaries to "waive the bloody shirt" of generals (and by extension, soldiers) who they contend (with some merit) are being called traitors."  The ad is specifically about General Petraeus, not generals or soldiers, plural and in general.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:13:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

YOU ARE RIGHT Aunt Martha (4.00 / 1)

The polls are in from the media... they get all the BS in print and lots of Democratic Congress folks read the spin as the will of the people.  Moveon.org was and still is right.  Our side needs to stand up and continue to make noise.  Maybe... just maybe folks will start listening to us. I'm a Vietnam era vet who agrees with Moveon.org and will continue to support them.

---

by: wvblueguy @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 21:15:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would have been ignored (0.00 / 0)

and forgotten by now had MoveOn been less confrontational.

As skewed as you may deem the media frenzy to be - it provides a chance to keep the issue in front of the nation.

Being ignored is never a good thing.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:52:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bite the hand that feeds you.... (4.00 / 1)

I tried to tell Moveon that Joe Donnelly (IN-02) was not on their side when they dumped close to $400K into the District. Yes, we defeated a Bush Republican but replaced him with a Bush Bluedog! Their red-handed ads in the District helped set up Donnelly for a win and yesterday he voted to condemn them. With friends like these,.....

Moveon hopefully learned a lesson in all this. They should be MUCH more careful what they do with their/our money next time.

---

by: IndySteve @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:42:08 PM CDT

I didn't listen to you either Steve (0.00 / 0)

I could have wasted those hours working for you and gotten more for my time.

---

by: Paddy @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:31:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quick Resource (0.00 / 0)

Also, useful sometimes to check out how much $$$ coming from the DLC friendship PAC's == e.g. the Friends of Hoyer, Emanuel and Harman -- and such!  Keeping the newbie critters in line -- for you know what!

e.g.Chris Murphy
http://capwiz.com/zo...

---

by: SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 15:45:18 PM CDT

A depressing situation (0.00 / 0)

  What you're essentially saying, Chris, is that these faux-netroots Democrats ran for Congress for reasons other than a desire to set the country right after six years of Bush. Despite all their pretty campaign rhetoric.

  Because if they truly had been motivated by a desire to change things, they wouldn't have succumbed so easily to the lure of DLC cash. After all, they won with our money, didn't they? Why wouldn't they win again? Especially if they actually accomplish what they were voted in to do.

  In other words, these people are whores, not public servants. They're not really interested in ending the Iraq madness; they simply used it to get elected.

  Meanwhile, here at home, I'm having a next-to-impossible time selling the Democratic Party to regular voters. "They're all the same" is the refrain I hear. And refuting that is hard work.

  So how do we get some public servants in office?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:16:38 PM CDT

Politics (0.00 / 0)

Politics/fascism is an ugly business.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:31:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

what all that was about (0.00 / 0)

2006 was never about electing liberal democrats. 

Anyone remember anything about a 50 state strategy? Putting forth conservative democrats in conservative districts?

It was about electing democrats who were better than the people they replaced to get that majority.  And it worked.

However it isn't magic.

---

by: Astera @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 17:36:05 PM CDT

And that was a fatal error (0.00 / 0)

You want to know the biggest difference between the Democrats and Republicans? Republicans are movement conservatives first. The GOP was simply a vehicle. The conservative movement was about electing conservatives. The historian Rick Perlstein tells an anecdote about a right-wing book publisher who was asked if he played golf, and the man responded, "I'm a conservative, not a Republican." The progressive movement approaches the problem backward. They're about electing Democrats, whether they are progressive, or not. They've made the demonstrably false calculation that if they elect Democrats, over a period of time, they can push those Democrats to adopt more progressives positions, and that is absolute bullshit. Politicians become more conservative as they become more entrenched, they are more difficult to move on legislation, and more difficult to replace when they disappoint. Nearly the entire progressive legacy of the Democratic party was achieved in a relatively short period of time, and it was done quickly, then the moment passed. The dynamics of electoral politics in America all but guarantees that what is useful will be achieved early, and what isn't achieved early, will not be achieved at all. The Blue Dogs if they were going to co-operate at all, it would be shortly after being swept into power on an anti-war, anti-free trade mandate. Newt Gingrich always feared movement conservatives turning into risk-averse establishment conservatives, that's why they had their members make loud, public promises about what they were going to do, and predicated support for those candidates on those promises. Democrats will embrace the Democrat regardless of what he, or she says, or doesn't say.

Just getting Democrats elected has pretty much been the mantra for over eighty years, and more times then not, Democrats were dominant, and more times then not, Democrats didn't do anything. Achieving a Democratic majority was always a silly goal to have. What did the Democratic majority and a Democratic president in 1993-94 give us? NAFTA! What did a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress give us in 1977-1980? A huge spike in defense spending, failed labor law reform, and deregulation of trucking, airlines and other industries. The GOP fifty state strategy was about electing conservatives, not Republicans.

---

by: Robert Drake @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 22:39:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meeting with Tauscher's office next week... (0.00 / 0)

Need help...

See this post.

http://www.openleft....

You'll recall that Tauscher supported Hoyer for Speaker as opposed to her colleague across the bay, Nancy Pelosi.

---

by: ContraCostaCA @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:09:06 PM CDT

The Ad (4.00 / 1)

I agree with the comment:
"As one local congressional candidate (an Iraq veteran) told me this past weekend, "Maybe MoveOn shot the Dems in the foot. But the Dems seemed to think they had to shoot their other foot to balance it out."

Feingold got it right.  For the Dems to create a contrasting resolution just added fuel to the fire.  The Dems seem very naive to me.  And clearly there is very little leadership. 

Obviously MoveOn has too much money.  I can't believe how much you show they contributed to some campaigns.  We probably support a 50-state strategy but look what we're getting some of the time. 

I'm not very tolerant of Democrats using the excuse that they are in very Republican districts and therefore, they have to act like Republicans.  Why could they have said to their constituents, "Voting on ads has no place in the House (Senate). There are more important issues to address, like the war."

---

by: cando @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 22:29:10 PM CDT