Criticizing Move On Does Not Equal Pro-Iraq War

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:15:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Chris Bowers writes:

[T]he current conservative governing coalition of George Bush, Bush Dogs, congressional Republicans, and anti-MoveOn, anti-Reid Feingold Senators is opposed to the will of 60% of the American people on Iraq.

This conflation of criticism of Move On's ill advised ad (which is, I suppose, what Bowers is referring to; I condemn Move On for the ad and for its efforts to support the horrible Iraq Supplemental this Spring (Bowers also supported at times) and for its silly waste of a "ratchet up the pressure"/Wait for the Godot Republicans strategy this summer) withsupport for continuation of the war is ridiculous.

And it is unfortunate that Chris chose to demand fealty to Move On in this post as he makes a point of mine of longstanding - there is no compromise on Iraq. The choices now are binary - are you for ending the Iraq War? Then support ONLY funding with timelines. Anything else is de facto support for continuation of the Iraq Debacle.

< Religious Freedom in Federal Prisons | Phil Spector : The Judge's Unorthodox Instructions >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Criticizing Move On Does Not Equal Pro-Iraq War | 61 comments (61 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We saw a bit of this yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:29:28 PM EST

It's funny--MoveOn distracted people from Reid-Feingold with its stupid ad.

Why talk about ending the 'war' when (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:36:41 PM EST

you can talk about how people talk about a group that talks about the Iraq 'war.'


The Netroots (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:38:09 PM EST

and "respect" for it is what matters to them apparently.


Ego, money, and power. (none / 0) (#11)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:40:41 PM EST

Gee, what a refreshing departure from politics as usual.

For some, it appears the goal is to crash the gates . . . to Animal Farm.


I have ego and want power (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:41:35 PM EST

and crave "Respect" for my views too.

But darn it, there is a way to go about this.


Yes, to earn respect through the truth (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:44:27 PM EST

of ones ideas, the clarity of ones arguments, and by creating results through activism.

Or, throwing a temper tantrum and namecalling.


Oh I do that (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:47:47 PM EST

but I like to think I do it over issues I care about.

I have been way hard on him and Move On for their terrible Iraq strategy this year. I stand by my criticisms.

They are substantive.

I also criticize the ad on stupidity grounds and principle grounds. I hate the betray us crap.

But this response is just nuts. Criticizing Move On is pro-Iraq War? Puhleeeaze.

Jumped 3 sharks with that one.


4 Democrats voted to criticize Moveon (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:50:13 PM EST

and to use Congress's funding power to end the Iraq war.

Of course, that means they're the enemy.

I also saw people claiming Obama wouldn't have voted against the IWR--because he boycotted the Moveon vote (while later voting to use Congress's funding power to end the Iraq war).


Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:57:55 PM EST

Personally, I would have voted for the Boxer thing, abstained on the Move On thing and of course voted for Reid-Feingold.

In short, do what Obama did.


What was "the Boxer thing"? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:18:07 PM EST

Is that what you were referring to in this portion of your comment in a different thread today?

(I would have censured them for their idiotic political strategy on Iraq)

Sort of (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:23:32 PM EST

It was ageneral censure of Move On, the attacks on Kerry, attack on Cleland . . .


: I was picturing you as a hypothetical Senator (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 04:26:06 PM EST

voting "yea" on the sense of the Senate dissing of Move On!

It's why people who don't read you closely (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:49:36 PM EST

don't have a clue what you're talking about and just assume that you're, um, "Big Tantrum."

But you've got your methods, and they tend to work.


I dunno (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:56:49 PM EST

"Work" is relative.


: I'm happy to have you be (none / 0) (#28)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:59:29 PM EST

the squeaky wheel of the netroots.

This is what it was all about (3.66 / 3) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:36:29 PM EST

For MoveOn's supporters, the special notice from Bush may only serve to validate its confrontational style. "I think he just raised MoveOn several million more dollars," said Erik Smith, a Democratic media consultant.

Move On's "confrontational style" was nowhere to be found before this stupid ad.

This is about dollars for Move On, imo.


It's about funneling money and influence (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:38:41 PM EST

to online pundits and activists like Moveon, Jerome Armstrong, etc etc.

The goal is to get a piece of the action rather than to actually see policy results enacted. Just like the power-hungry politicians they scorn.

Kos, to his credit, seems to still have his eye on the ball.


It is beginning to smell like that (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:39:35 PM EST

Kos, have his own funding resources, does not have to play this game.


None of them 'have' to play (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:41:55 PM EST

that game.

Kos has always been about the larger movement rather than catering to special interest groups. It's gotten him in some trouble in the past.


: Well (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:48:41 PM EST

I do not know their circumstances.
I hope this is done out principle. But Move On's motives are suspect to me.
I simply see no good reason for it.

No, Soros has plenty (1.00 / 2) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:11:02 PM EST

Good point (5.00 / 0) (#43)
by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:58:35 PM EST

Since he hasn't given them money in years. But keep up the talking points, they only make the right look more ignorant.


: Prove it wrong... (1.00 / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:35:25 PM EST

Best known among these groups is MoveOn.org, a previously small fringe-left group to which Soros has given $5 million since 2004. Bulked up by cash, the group now uses professional public relations tactics to undercut the Iraq War effort, with its latest a full-page New York Times ad that branded Gen. Petraeus "General Betray Us."

"Anti-Moveon." (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:35:49 PM EST

Wow.

The Netroots get their designation as narrow special interest group instead of advocates for a broader progressive movement. Way to become part of the problem guys.

You may have wondered why (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:37:21 PM EST

I have been so hard on Stoller and Bowers AND MoveOn this year. I think you probably wonder a little less now.


No, that part never confused me. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:39:20 PM EST

Stoller jumps the shark more than the TV show "Heroes."


He makes me look (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:40:58 PM EST

positively serene these days.

He attacked the Young Democrats for praising the Dem Congress on the same day they voted to censure Move On.

Wild stuff.


: Well, his lamenting of a Democratic (none / 0) (#16)
by Geekesque on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:43:24 PM EST

pick-up of the Virginia Senate seat was a new low.
Until he speculated as to which level of Hell Barack Obama would inhabit.

: I don't read him anymore (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:43:44 PM EST

It's even clearer why (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:42:04 PM EST

he's angry with you.


so, if they were more cautious / savvy / (none / 0) (#46)
by seabos84 on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 09:05:57 PM EST

judicious, then the lying fascists wouldn't have lied about them?

do you remember the atewater / bush b.s. over the pledge of allegiance against dukakis?

this is the EXACT same thing, and the real root of the problem is NOT the lying fascists doing what lying fascists ... do!

the root of the problem is that we the pee-ons keep accepting all kinds of complicated excuses from 'leaders' who will not fight the liars and who will not make the lies too painful to continue -

so we the peee-ons end up with complete flat footed inept chicken***ts who are getting rolled by fascist lies and distorations about moveon the way bush sr lied and distorted over dukakis being a 'card carrying member of the aclu'

...oops, no, I meant willie horton

...ooops, I meant the pledge of allegiance.

it shouldn't be a surprise that the heirs of people who fought the 40 hour work week and unemployement insurance adn anythign decent for peee-ons will do any despicable thing to keep haliburton in iraq.

what's disgusting is how we the peee-ons still got such crap 'leaders' who are too incompetent to turn the tables on any of these fascist 101 despicable actions.

rmm.


Oh come now (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:15:17 PM EST

YOU can not have forgotten what MoveOn has done this year.

YOU know they stink.

Do not pretend you do not.


: your right about what they've (none / 0) (#54)
by seabos84 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:19:52 AM EST

'done' prior to the ad. they've enabled whimpery.
frankly, I did forget how pathetic they've been.
When I saw that sneering waste of flesh on the 6 p.m. Seattle NBC news Thursday night slamming moveon, I had a flashback to shrub's old man standing on podiums in front of a zillion flags saying the pledge of allegiance after labor day 1988,
because they were yet again tarring and feathering whimpy Dukakis,
so I sent whimpy moveon $25!
oh well, it seems like all my political donations of the last ... whatever,
would have been better invested in 10 buck a gallon vodka.
rmm.

Threads like these (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by Dadler on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:36:46 PM EST

Are so f*cking pointless. MoveOn made an add some people don't like. MoveOn has made mistakes some people abhor. Beyond that, there is nothing. Nada.

Petraeus should be called what he is, a lackey and yes-man. What has he done to deserve anything more. His vaunted counterinsurgency manual is a guidebook for delusions ultimately, requiring the kind of war Iraq is: unpopular, unwanted and unwinnable. That is the starting point for its model.

Are we too afraid to take on the deification of the military? If we don't take that on, then there will be NO end to any war. Wars like Iraq are the extension of that deification, of the public's unwillingness or fear to question and dissent.

: Sure (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:19:44 AM EST

But have you seen the Netroots on this? Move On as litmus test?
That is not only ridiculous, it is harmful.

Limits of dissent (none / 0) (#10)
by sphealey on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:40:34 PM EST

> And it is unfortunate that Chris chose
> to demand fealty to Move On in this post

It appears that Rudy Giuliani is now proposing that speech such as MoveOn's ad be made illegal. I don't see any liberal commentators demanding fealty to MoveOn - just that Democratic politicians not participate in the Radical Right's kabuki theater of fear.

sPh

Oh please (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:43:48 PM EST

A Senate resolution is hardly stifling dissent.

It was empty theater.

As for Rudy, well he is a menace. Always has been.

But the fact is Move On's ad stunk, Move has been crappy all year and my criticism of Move On does not make me pro-war.

Move On is NO PROXY for me.

I deplore the organization's actions, especially those of Tom Mattzie.

I urge people NOT to donate to them.

Am I the equivalent of Rudy in your mind>


It's funny that you accidentally left off (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:47:03 PM EST

the "on" in MoveOn. After all, being from Philly, I can only think of one "MOVE".

/non sequitur


Well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 02:59:19 PM EST

I do that alot so it has no hidden meaning I don't think.

Having read me all year, you know I am no johny come lately to ripping Move On.


: No, you're not (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 03:00:21 PM EST

new to typos either. :-p

OK, so... (none / 0) (#61)
by dkmich on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 07:23:18 AM EST

forget MoveOn, Stoller, Bowers, DCCC, DSCC, DNC - then what? I am done "electing Democrats" cause there aren't any. I would prefer money and time be spent taking them down because the only thing they understand is their own "self-interest and political survival". Today anyway, that is where MoveOn, Stoller, etc. have moved on to. As read in a OPOL diary, "voting for the lesser of two evils elects evil".


I asked this question (none / 0) (#33)
by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:10:59 PM EST

in another thread but no one seemed to have the answer:

Was there any way Reid could have stopped the MoveOn amendment from reaching the floor?

I just linked to your question in yet another (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:13:15 PM EST

thread. no answer yet though.


: Thanks. (none / 0) (#35)
by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:15:49 PM EST

I've been looking everywhere....

In theory, I don't think he had to allow it (none / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:22:52 PM EST

: I agree (none / 0) (#37)
by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:39:39 PM EST

But I've read that for "procedural reasons" he could not block it. But I have not heard an explanation as to what those "procedural reasons" were.

Foolishness (none / 0) (#38)
by cmpnwtr on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 05:40:27 PM EST

What's to be criticized is Harry Reid for allowing his idiotic thing to get to the floor. What business does the Senate have in either chastising or praising a political ad or any expression of free speech, as far as that goes. Plain idiocy. Moveon is now flush with cash to do more ads. More power to them. A lot of people trust Moveon a lot more than they do the Democratic party and I am one of them. The fact is Petraeus told deliberate distortions under oath and he did it to be Bush's errand boy. He betrayed his uniform and he betrayed his country. That is the truth, whether it's politically correct or not. Chuck Hagel calls Petraeus out on his betrayal of military role and what happens to him, nothing!!

You trust Move On (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:21:26 AM EST

I certainly do not.

You liked their performance this year. I think it is atrocious.

I object to the notion of some peole trying to make supporting Move On a litmus test.

That is an attempt to stifle dissent.


Sure (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:04:22 PM EST

Not letting it get to the floor was the answer. Really makes the point about Republican obstruction.

My gawd, folks seem to care more about Move On than ending the war.


Really? (none / 0) (#40)
by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 06:32:01 PM EST

You're actually going to compare this with the bill Republicans have been obstructing? Really? They're on the same level?


No (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 07:50:38 PM EST

You make my point.

It is NOT WORTH IT to filibuster a stupid bill like the Move On resolution.

Why would you do that?


Because it sets an ugly precendent. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:00:18 PM EST

not too hard to understand.


Stopping this war (3.00 / 2) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 08:32:50 PM EST

is much more important than some theoretical precedent.

BTW, if you really believe that is a precedent then you must not be that familiar with the silliness that occurs in Congress.


Okay (none / 0) (#50)
by DA in LA on Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 11:36:45 PM EST

Since I don't understand Congress I obviously must not be worthy of discussion with someone as knowledgable as yourself.

Thanks.


: How about sticking to facts (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:23:14 AM EST

instead of feigning hurt feelings?
Are you familiar with the ridiculous resolutions passed by the Senate in the past?
If so, then you must see this stupid resolution is NOT a precedent.

yes, bigtime foolishness (none / 0) (#53)
by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 01:14:00 AM EST

The anti-MoveOn.org bill was obstruction of serious work as the NYT pointed out and stopping it would have been calling the Republicans out on their hypocrisy. If K.Olbermann can do it, why can't the Senate Dems? Instead, half the Dems rally around a bill that targets MoveOn in a way that the Coulters and Limbaughs and Purple Band Aid crowd never were. Imagine a Senate leader who called bullsh** what it is, and stopped the bill from coming forward. Imagine a Democratic party that got behind Feingold/Reid. The Democrats have lost what little credibility as opponents of the war they had as a party.


tnthorpe (1.00 / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:19:18 AM EST

If K.Olbermann can do it, why can't the Senate Dems?

Because Olberman has a base of maybe 2,000,000... the Demos the whole country..


And (5.00 / 0) (#56)
by tnthorpe on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:04:40 AM EST

of course you speak for "the whole country" or is it "many people"? You seem to be ratcheting the number up in your responses, as if the conceit gave your substanceless posts merit.


: Nope (1.00 / 0) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 09:42:04 AM EST

I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to compare a talking head with a very small audience to the US Senate.

WSWS: An attack on free speech (none / 0) (#52)
by Andreas on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 12:44:17 AM EST

The WSWS writes:

The phony furor whipped up over the newspaper ad served largely as a distraction from the Republican support for continuing unchanged a criminal war in Iraq that is opposed by a large majority of the US population. It also served to divert attention, if only momentarily, from the abject failure of the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate to enact a single piece of legislation altering the course of the war. ...
For the overwhelming majority of the US Senate to support resolutions condemning political speech in the name of upholding the "honor, integrity and patriotism" of the US military amounts to telling the population to keep their mouths shut and defer to the authority of the generals. ...
The facts of the case, however, substantiate the substantive charges made against Petraeus in MoveOn.org's ad. It said he was "cooking the books for the White House" in order to claim that the escalation of the US intervention in Iraq has produced "progress" and a reduction of violence. It went on to cite the numerous independent reports indicating that the civilian death toll has actually mounted. ...

US Senate censure of MoveOn.org:
An attack on free speech in the service of militarism
By Bill Van Auken, 22 September 2007

: The ad had no "substantive charges" (3.00 / 2) (#60)
by andgarden on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:56:32 AM EST

what an absurd article.