has anything really changed? (0.00 / 0)

The suggestion of up being down throws into question the idea of "high information" voters and whether or not that "high information" is all just a bunch of lies.

Much has been made of Hillary's "low information" supporters, but perhaps they are just better at filtering out the bullshit.

---

by: Astera @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 17:29:38 PM CDT

Whither Open Left? (0.00 / 0)

What I wonder is, where does an outfit called Open Left go, now that the Democratic Party it has been supporting has shown itself to be unworthy of support by anybody?

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 17:35:39 PM CDT

I just gave MoveOn $50 (0.00 / 0)

Since money seems to be the language of choice in DC, let's rally and show these bastards.

---

by: TValley @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 18:19:01 PM CDT

Same here. (0.00 / 0)

I cancelled my $50/month to the DNC (and told them why) and it's going to MoveOn.

---

by: Cat Servant @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:40:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Chris Dodd (4.00 / 1)

Well we got our Sista Soulja moment, only the only person who didn't give it to us was Hillary Clinton.

Chris Dodd voted against the Cornyn amendment to condemn MoveOn, as Chris linked to below. And he voted for and co-sponsored the Feingold-Reid amendment.

So I'm not sure the statement above is entirely accurate.

Disclosure: I proudly work for Chris Dodd's presidential campaign.

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 18:23:53 PM CDT

I contributed to MoveOn last weekend... (4.00 / 1)

  ...and I'm sending them some more today.

  I really don't know what the point of the Democratic Party's existence is anymore.

  Oh, and to the senators of both parties who decided this issue was worth wasting time on: I hope the rest of your time on this earth is filled with daily, chronic excruciating pain.

 

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

---

by: Master Jack @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 18:32:53 PM CDT

I'm actually starting to like Hillary Clinton a bit... (0.00 / 0)

... and I never thought I'd ever say that.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 19:12:09 PM CDT

OMG, Why? (0.00 / 0)

You'll never find anyone more adept at ILofI than Billary. Sorry, I meant Hillary.

Really. There is a reason why certain pols triangulate. It's because they don't believe in much of anything, save self interest.

I would ask that you consider the possibility that only a bona fide movement candidate can be treated with respect. A PROGRESSIVE is a "movement" candidate. Hillary is not progressive and is certainly not a movement candidate. She is a neo-liberal at best and that's rather right-wing. Given her latest on Israel/Palestine, I'm more inclined to think her neo-conservative.

Ergo, she is playing the field, as it were, as are most. Her "health care" proposal, for example, should be a warning, but it doesn't seem to resonate that way. Why? Well, it's not what she's proposing that stinks, it's the fact that she also offers the addenDUM that she isn't really proposing specific policies, but rather a set of "goals" that she will then present to congress for them to fritter away in much the same way that Bill Clinton offered Campaign Finance Reform for congress to similarly fritter away way back in that tepid spring of '93.

Still, her "signing statement" (that's rather how I interpreted it) spoke more than her policy "goals." In other words, it's just WORDS.

State policy objectives, then put it all on congress to figure it all out in the end. Lord knows that's worked out really well since we allegedly gained a so-called "majority" in both houses!

Yep, just like Bill Clinton's plan to "reform" our electoral system in '93. We all know how that worked out, now don't we? In case you weren't around for it then, just look around now. That's all the evidence you require.

I do think a progessive movement can enjoy it's moment in the proverbial sun at some point and I'm rather sure that it will happen, but that moment isn't here yet. There are still too many Dem base activists who lack the critical faculties to make the distinctions that need to be made. Until then, the prominent pols will simply take us for granted.

The movement has to become an actual movement and it has to insist on results instead of mere words. We also have to be able to hold people accountable, which the pols are now currently wagering we can't, which is obvious from their behavior. It's also true at this time.

If Barbara Boxer, one of my senators and a supposed progressive, can take up hours of the senate's time with a stupid rebuke of MoveOn, but can't find a way to write a global warming bill (even though she chairs Environment), then what are we supposed to make of that?

Words don't matter. Action does. Words are a politicians stock in trade, action typically isn't. Those who speak well, as alleged progressives,  but don't follow through should be pursued far more aggressively than those who simply aren't on our side. Right now it's the betrayal of "our own" that's killing us. The rightists are helping us, if anything.

Forget about words. Think about results and who will get them.

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

---

by: Emocrat @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 23:11:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Just gave MoveOn some money too. (4.00 / 1)

I have been a MoveOn member for many years.  I just gave them some money when I signed the petition.

---

by: surfk9 @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 19:32:54 PM CDT

This was what Vietnam did as well (0.00 / 0)

That war showed a generation of good people that the Democrats were not worth fighting for. Is another generation about to join mine in dropping out?

Don't know, but I gave Move-On some money and mostly they are too cautious for me. :-)

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 19:42:51 PM CDT

Jesus Christ People (0.00 / 0)

MAYBE they voted that way because they actually believe the ad was inappropriate?  God forbid they express their honest opinion on a trivial piece of legislation instead of ALWAYS looking for the politically expedient answer.  I don't like Petraeus at all, and I thought the ad was inappropriate.

---

by: Whoppo @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 22:31:40 PM CDT

Funny (0.00 / 0)

Funny how the first time they strayed from the politically expedient answer was to dump all over the organization that gave them the Senate majority. You know, the majority their party was too incompetent to win by itself?

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 23:39:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Umm (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, MoveOn won the senate for Democrats by themselves.  Jonestown called, they want their koolaid back.

---

by: Whoppo @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:21:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, they did (0.00 / 0)

Unless you think GOTV just doesn't work. MoveOn made 74,000 calls to Democratic-leaning but unmotivated Montana voters in the weeks before the election and ran ground operations as well. They spent/contributed over $350,000 in that race alone. Tester, who now voted to neuter MoveOn, won by 1800 votes. Rational people have to believe that MoveOn (and other GOTV efforts by PFAW, DFA, some unions and other organiztions) made the difference.

MoveOn made half a million calls for Jim Webb in Virginia. He won by 7000 votes. He voted to censure MoveOn.

MoveOn volunteers made over 7 million phone calls to wavering Democratic-leaning voters in targeted Senate and House districts and raised over $27 million for Democratic candidate campaigns. Their micro-targeting operation put efforts by the Democratic Party to shame.

OK, you don't think all of that changed the outcome of a single Senate race. That's your privilege. I hear the DLC makes some killer koolaid. I suggest you have some more of it.

---

by: DaveW @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:25:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Umm (0.00 / 0)

And this proves your point how?  No one else did any work in any of those districts?

---

by: Whoppo @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 17:02:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Pun (0.00 / 0)

My initial reaction to the ad was similar. Do you know how much it costs to get a full page ad in the NY Times? It's a little more than $60,000.

I saw that ad and thought, "Sixty thousand dollars for a *pun*? You have got to be kidding me." I agree with the idea behind the ad. Petreaus is a betrayer of our armed forces, our constitution, The people of Iraq, and all of us, but... a pun? Isn't that a bit Jr. High School?

Of course, I am blown away by congress' denouncement of the ad. Congress isn't saying that it was in poor taste. They're saying that no one should raise their voice too much against this war. They're saying that Petreaus should be taken seriously. They're saying that even after 6 years of fraudulent warfare, that they just don't get it.

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 00:07:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are they? (0.00 / 0)

"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

I don't really support this amendment as written I guess (I think Petraeus's integrity is worth debating) but I don't know that it says what you attribute to it.

In my opinion, Obama almost did the right thing about this.  Democrats should have just refused to vote en masse, and he should have tried to organize this (or at least get a few more people to join him.)

---

by: Whoppo @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:27:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Call A Spade A Spade (0.00 / 0)

I think that at this point, after hearing all the lies over and over again that come out of the administration, it's totally appropriate to call a liar a liar. Insinuating that Petreaus deserves our honor and respect, and condemning a group who calls him what he is, a liar, puts one clearly on the side of the war machine.

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 15:30:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really. (0.00 / 0)

So all the senators who voted for that bill are on the side of the war machine?  This one bill that doesn't directly affect anyone in any way is more important than, say, voting to actually end the war?

---

by: Whoppo @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 17:04:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

The meaninglessness of the resolution only accents the point of whose side they're on. They're not taking any of their valuable time to actually vote on a bill that would actually do something to end the war. Instead, they're using up their time (which is our time) to write up a formal document to remind us that they hate it when anybody tries to raise a ruckus about the war.

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 23:34:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So what (0.00 / 0)

It really doesn't matter to me whether they are cowards or fools.  The result is the same.

---

by: jeffroby @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 12:47:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Betrayal (0.00 / 0)

Matt, you are absolutely right that Democrats will betray us often and at any time. They will continue to do so as long as the consequences for betrayal are low. The question we should be asking is how we the voters can systematically raise the stakes to make betrayal more risky.

Baucus, Bayh, Cardin, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Dorgan, Feinstein, Johnson, Klobuchar, Kohl, Landrieu, Leahy, Lieberman, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, Nelson, Ben
Nelson, Bill Salazar, Tester, Webb

The other question is whether or not MoveOn will endorse the elected officials who voted against them. If MoveOn backs any of these peoples' bids for re-election, they are not to be trusted as an organization. I'm not saying that MoveOn has to work against any of these officials, but none of them should receive endorsements, money, or backing from the organization.

---

by: astrodem @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:14:21 AM CDT

Why not? (0.00 / 0)

Why shouldn't MoveOn work against these guys? They're obviously not helping us. They're working against us. We should just lay down and like it?

---

by: D'arby Salt @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 10:53:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The bigger question is, (0.00 / 0)

will ANY independent left-of-center organization work for any of these people or for any other Democrats again? I know I won't. Like I said before, it doesn't take much experience to learn not to lie down with snakes.

---

by: DaveW @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:29:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Iron Clad Rule of Oligarchy (0.00 / 0)

I remember it from my Polisci days being called the Iron Clad Rule of Oligarchy, and it being explained a bit different.  The only link I could find online was this

http://library.think...

and I didn't really want to drag out my old Behaviorlism textbooks. 

The key point I want to make is that it's not just the senate (or congress, or the beltway, or academia, or...) that falls victim to the rule of oligarchy, it's all institutions ever.  That includes Moveon itself, that includes CodePink, it includes DFA, and the DNC, and the bloggosphere, and openleft, and on and on. 

Anyone and everyone will usually betray you if it's clearly in their best interest, they don't know you personally, and especially if they've been in any sort of power or comfort for more than a few years. 

Which is a whole lot less depressing than it sounds.  See, instead of giving up on the Senate, we have to see it's actions as part of a predictable (though sad) series of events.  But it's a series that can happen anywhere, and has been happening forever.  So instead of giving up on them, we can just, hopefully... move on. 

---

by: nebraskajohn @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:13:36 PM CDT

Yeah, move on (0.00 / 0)

to putting our efforts behind breaking the two-party monster for once and for all.

---

by: DaveW @ Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:30:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]