home

What Is Move On?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 04:41:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I and other opposers of the Iraq supplemental funding bill are taken to task by a blog because of supposedly:

find[ing] a feeling of sickness because Move On dares to stick to it's founding principles . . . and applauding members of Congress who chose to vote the Dem line.

Following the Dem line is what Move On is about? It seems so but why then did Eli Parisier say:

"the job of a party is to get elected and the job of a movement is to promote ideas and an ideology," and that "we're definitely on the movement side of the equation. We don't want to be the party."

I buy that actually. I just think that Move On is incredibly wrong on the Iraq supplemental and will soon discover this. The tragedy is there is no going back. The die is cast. I predict that in a month Move On, MYDD, David Sirota, et al. will be vituperatively protesting against "cave in" Dems. They will be a month late with that cry.

< NYTimes: Iraq Supplemental A Sharp Rebuke To Bush | The Dems' "Plan" For Iraq >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Is Move On? | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Not to disparage Olive at the blog.... but (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by jerry on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:13:07 PM EST
    Ah hell, let me just disparage her by pointing out how odd her post's title is:

    "Amateur Liberals..."

    While noting her profile says she is"

        * Gender: Female
        * Industry: Government
        * Location: Glen Burnie : Maryland : United States

    Sigh, BTD YOU SIR, are an amateur liberal, and I am even less than that, so we both should just stfu and gbtw and let our professional liberal overlords tell us what to think and who to vote for (and presumably how to feel about things like the war and losing the next election.)

    Amateur? (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:06:03 PM EST
    To put a measure on the floor of Congress that will only go down in flames, is to avoid a showdown with Bush.
    Because the people who would shoot it down, Olive and her friends, and MoveOn, cannot it seems, when it comes to the crunch, bring themselves to stand up and actually have a showdown with Bush. Instead they'll lunge for any small crumb Bush pretends to toss their way, never realizing that they are being manipulated. Perhaps too proud to believe they can be.

    Olive will not get that, I think. And there is not much point in trying refute to her. She has too much now emotionally invested in her post to not defend it.

    Others who read it will see that amateurism label that she vituperativly flings as what it is.

    Projection.

    It's becoming clear now (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:48:19 PM EST
    that there is only really one reason that the occupation of Iraq is taking so long to end.

    There are still not enough people who really want to end it.

    There are many who will say they want to end it, but there are many more still who want to simply use it to benefit themselves. To use it simply to accrue more power.

    All the while trying to justify themselves to themselves and to each other by telling themselves that when they have enough power they will end it.
    "You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do."
    -- Henry Ford


    Move On (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by littafi on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:12:01 PM EST
    I was disappointed in the moveon email that was written in such a manner as to drive a certain vote.  

    My concern is that after the Senate filubusters this bill, the Democrats will say they have "tried" enough and will pass the supplemental with no restrictions.  We will see.

    I am not optimistic.  4 years now this war has gone on.  How many more will die?

    Good diary, BTD

    PS. Why did you leave (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by littafi on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:13:06 PM EST
    Daily Kos?  Is it private or have you spoken of it?

    Markos is a good friend of mine (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:17:31 PM EST
    It just was not a good fit anymore.

    Parent
    So it wasn't the absolute disaster (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Stewieeeee on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:30:49 PM EST
    that it was predicted it would be yesterday, but make no mistake, it will be one day.

    Here's a thought, if it turns out it's not a disaster in one month, as you just predicted, are you going to update your prediction at that time?  Or if by some miracle of miracles they're still making progress one month from now, will it be worth considering that the initial scepticism, while fashionable, was misplaced.

    Your prediction above is noted.  It's on record.  Lets give it a month and 6 days.  

    Lets revisit it on May 1.

    Let me see if I understand (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by LarryE on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:00:46 AM EST
    So we who opposed the supplemental are "idiots" (Rep. Obey) who just want to "grandstand for the cameras" (David Sirota) and "see [our] mug shot on FOX" (Olive) and have not a single clue about legislative process or political action.

    But we're the ones tearing apart the movement with our mean, accusatory tone. Got it.

    And what is it we don't understand about legislating? "Three words: Veto Proof Majority." So it's foolish to even vote on something like the Lee amendment because it would never become law. What's not foolish, on the other hand, is to pass a bill giving Bush all the money he wants with no effective constraints - knowing it will never become law. Got that, too.

    What I "don't got" is how Bush was going to veto the refusal to pass an appropriation. But I'm sure my betters will explain it to me.

    (Footnote: Yes, I know all about the "a weaker bill will get introduced" argument. The fact remains that having to start from scratch provides new opportunities for some of that "hardball" for which Sirota lavishly praised progressives.)

    Correcting tenses (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryE on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:04:54 AM EST
    For clarity, that footnote should have read "weaker bill would get introduced" and "would have provided new opportunities."

    Parent
    Right to the meat of things (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:22:51 AM EST
    sans outlandish conspiracy theories, thanks BTD.  I don't believe that MoveOn is my enemy, only that they are wrong about this and none of us will enjoy it if that full discovery is made.

    Move On supports the war (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andreas on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 02:15:11 AM EST
    Move On is a Democratic organisation - that is why it now supports the financing of the war.

    What Is Move On? | 11 comments (11 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment