"We bought it, we own it"?

[Kire]

MoveOn to Democratic Party: "we own it"
By Sam Hananel

Dec. 9, 2004 | Washington -- Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.

"For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."

More: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/12/09/moveon/

[latteromden]

1. They BOUGHT it? How much did THAT cost, exactly? Can I get one, too?

[LiberalVoice]

2. I don't think they meant "they" as in MoveOn itself...

They meant the democrats of the nation.

[coreystone]

9. THE FIXX lyrics - "One Thing Leads To Another"

MOVEON should learn how to communicate more precisely! I get sick of reading between the lines, then having one of the spokespeople say oh!....that's not what we said. SAY IT OR DON'T!


One Thing Leads To Another

The deception with tact
Just what are you trying to say
You've got a blank face, which irritates
Communicate, pull out your party piece
You see dimensions in two
State your case with black or white
But when one little cross
Leads to shots, grit your teeth
You run for cover so discreet
Why don't they

Do what they say, say what you mean
Oh well, one thing leads to another
You told me something wrong
I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another

The impression that you sell
Passes in and out like a scent
But the long face that you see
Comes from living close to your fears
If this is up, then I'm up
But you're running out of sight
You've seen your name on the walls
And when one little bump
Leads to shock miss a beat
You run for cover and there's heat
Why don't they

Do what they say, say what they mean
One thing leads to another
You told me something wrong
I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another
Yeah, yeah, yeah

One thing leads to another

Then it's easy to believe
Somebody's been lying to me
But when the wrong word goes in the right ear
I know you've been lying to me
It's getting rough, off the cuff
I've got to say enough's enough
Bigger the harder he falls
But when the wrong antidote
Is like a bulge on the throat
You run for cover in the heat
Why don't they

Do what they say, say what they mean
One thing leads to another
You told me something wrong
I know I listen too long
But then one thing leads to another
Yeah, yeah

One thing leads to another...

[robcon]

3. If Moveon owns the party, I'm outta here.

What, exactly, has Moveon ever accomplished?

[bryant69]

4. Well

They raise awareness of Democratic Causes. The provide a voice to the activist side of the Democratic Party--a side that had been shut out for a period of time. I don't necessarily agree with all that MoveOn does or advocates, but nor do I agree with all (or even all that much) of what the DLC advocates either. On the other hand I have to admit that both impulses (moderation, activism) are part of the Democratic party and both should be given leave to express themselves.

After all, let's be blunt, there's little chance that MoveOn (and the activist/progressive side of the Democratic Party) is going to eliminate the DLC (the moderate side), but it could go back the other way.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Don't we just wish it did. Alas, the DLC(R) has ownership.

They've paid for and taken possesion of the party. Which is why I'm leaving for the Green oppostion.

[MissBrooks]

6. In a perfect world...

The American People own the Democratic Party.
Well, the Democratic American People.

If you don't like the way your party is going - get involved and tell them... Wait... I guess that's what we are doing here at DU. Right?

:hi:

[Toucano]

7. Alienated traditional and progressive Democrats?

Where? Who? If they were alienated, it didn't show.

Every single Democrat I know worked their ass off to defeat Bush.

Challenging a war-time president who has direct control of the fear level is a difficult job. None could have done better.

Were there mistakes? Sure. There always are. This blame game is futile, though.

[DainBramaged]

8. The problem lies in the premise

Every single Democrat I know worked their ass off to defeat Bush.


If the DNC had the organization that the RNC has, this discussion would be moot. Until there is central coordination and funds to accomplish the goals of the majority, our efforts will continue to be singular.

[Toucano]

10. Of course, there are problems with that premise, too.

Are you suggesting that a different funding structure could have produced the magical piece of direct mail that would have persuaded the impoverished and unemployed rural Ohioans to abandon their fears of terr'ists, gay marriage, abortion and gun control and focus on the actual issues like jobs, healthcare, and education?

Or are you suggesting that a different structure could have produced more votes in Ohio's urban areas of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati?

Maybe you're suggesting that a different funding structure could have created the fundamentalist inspired voter guides that were dumped on church doorsteps the Sunday before the election?

Did the republican funding structure pay ministers to endores Bush from the pulpit? Who scripted the part about Kerry voters being condemned to hell?

[DainBramaged]

11. Does the DNC have the same machine in place as the RNC?

The answer is NO. When Clinton was elected, the RNC began the process of taking back control of the political process. The DNC and their attitude that the voice of reason would prevail, and that Democrats would be motivated to keep their candidates in office didn't work.

The RNC and Conservatives in general are not right in their convictions, but what the RNC did get right was how to manipulate the vote and voters by the use of the message and to attack the Left and their message.

All we've done in the past decade is respond to their attacks instead of attacking. The result speaks for itself.

[Toucano]

12. Would the machine make a difference?

You're missing the central question.

If you think having the "same machine" would make a difference, I'd like to know how.

I agree that we haven't been on the offensive enough, but I don't agree that it's a result of our different machine. It's the result of our different philosophy. Our wrong strategy.

We haven't been willing to lie (enough), cheat, steal and kill to win. If we were willing to do anything to win, we'd be republicans. If we had a Karl Rove, we'd crucify him. Many of us would rather be "right" than win. Republicans completely lack this quality.

The DNC and their attitude that the voice of reason would prevail, and that Democrats would be motivated to keep their candidates in office didn't work.

This statement is complete bullshit. The DNC fought tooth and nail for our candidates.

[DainBramaged]

13. Then why did states like NJ lack funding for the campaign?

We can sit here and argue till the aliens land, but the DNC has lost it's focus, and NJ was a perfect example. ZERO funding was provided for the campaign. Where there was a Gore/Lieberman headquarters in my area in 2000, there wasn't even a way to get a Kerry lawn sign OTHER than buying one from the campaign and stealing a Bush one for the wire frame. Who are you kidding?

We haven't been willing to lie (enough), cheat, steal and kill to win. If we were willing to do anything to win, we'd be republicans.

When did morality, other than the bastardization of 'moral values' win elections? This isn't the idyllic times of the past, our survival as a political entity at stake. When Dem's start realizing that being 'moral' means surviving, then we will have a platform for our version of morality. Until then, we're just background noise.

[Toucano]

16. Since we lost New Jersey, you're premise is proven.

That lack of funding cost us New Jersey's electoral votes. We should have spent more in Massachusetts, too. :crazy:

Perfect example my eye!

[DainBramaged]

19. You still don't get it.

A National Campaign should be a national campaign, not just a campaign in battleground states. As our margins shrink is states that are blue, when those states become battlegrounds in the next election, where do we get our support from? We LOST to the BFEE (popular vote) by how few votes? And how many did we 'win' by in 2000?

Taking into account the 2,883,000 (rounded) who voted for Nader, the margin of (popular vote) victory in 2000 was 3,427,000. * won by over 4,000,000 this year. A nearly 7% swing in four years guaranteed a sea change for our political future. And it also allowed the Thuglies to control our destiny. We as a party, ended up with a surplus in funds, and second place.

What's wrong with that picture?

[Toucano]

20. That's all true.

I don't have any problem with that.

The problem is with your hypothesis that the reason for those results is the republican financial machine. I think you've provided no evidence or rationale to support your theory other than there was no office in your town in New Jersey. Had we lost New Jersey, that would support your argument.

The popular vote doesn't elect presidents. I could quite easily live with an electoral college victory.

Maybe you missed it, but the United States (and the world) are vastly different places in 2004 than they were in 2000.

With voters saying the were displeased with Dubya's performance, unhappy about the way the war is going, sickened by the economic conditions, but voting for him anyway -- there wasn't anything that could have influenced them. They're simply not thinking clearly. The financial machine could not have convinced them to dump Dubya.

It's like this: A man goes into a restaurant. There are two dishes on the menu. One is a steaming hot plate of feces and the other is somthing he can't make out. He orders the feces because he "knows what he's getting". That's what U.S. voters did in 2004.

[DainBramaged]

22. It's easy for you to blame the vote on "not thinking clearly"

"With voters saying the were displeased with Dubya's performance, unhappy about the way the war is going, sickened by the economic conditions, but voting for him anyway -- there wasn't anything that could have influenced them. They're simply not thinking clearly. The financial machine could not have convinced them to dump Dubya."

The blame lies in the campaign, and it seems you want to blame the intelligence of the lemmings rather than the failure of the DNC and Kerry campaign. Remember the Swift Boat campaign? Or how about '3rd most liberal Senator'? Or the banning of Bibles?

The DNC reacted at every turn, and was always on the defensive, never on the attack.

"no evidence or rationale to support your theory other than there was no office in your town in New Jersey"

Try my county and nearly the entire state. Your generalizations and rationale to explain the loss are quaint, but if we had someone with balls running the campaigns instead of worrying about offending the base, we'd be discussing the Executive Orders Kerry would be issuing to roll back the damage by the BFEE instead of wringing your hands over the loss.

When we find a way to win the hearts and minds of the lemmings instead of pandering to the base, we'll return to power. Until then, we have four more years of hell to endure.

[Toucano]

23. Would you get your opinion straight, please.

When we find a way to win the hearts and minds of the lemmings instead of pandering to the base, we'll return to power. Until then, we have four more years of hell to endure.

Silly me. I've been arguing against your earlier position!

If the DNC had the organization that the RNC has, this discussion would be moot. Until there is central coordination and funds to accomplish the goals of the majority, our efforts will continue to be singular.

Please explain how "central coordination of funds" = winning "hearts and minds of the lemmings" because my whole point is it doesn't.

The "central coordination of funds" is the only thing I have disagreed with you about and you've been highly ineffective at communicating anything to support the idea that the lack of "central coordination of funds" lost the election. If you can explain how, please do.

I know! You need a "central coordination of funds" to get a clear message out! ;)

[DainBramaged]

24. I guess Rove and * won by pure luck? Disorganized too.

Argue with someone else. Keep thinking that the grassroots can win without help or organization or funds. We've been in the toilet since 1994, and unless the mindset changes, we won't regain power in our lifetimes.

See ya.

[Toucano]

26. Still no example?

I have to conclude your assessment is inaccurate since you can't cite a single example to support it.

Thanks for wasting my time. :thumbsup:

[leftofthedial]

14. oh how I wish they did

but they don't

the corporations do

[Geek_Girl]

15. MoveOn doesn't Own the Party

The DLC doesn't own the party
The DNC doesn't own the party
The corporation don't own the party

We own the party. The democratic American citizens who vote for, work for and contribute to the democratic candidates either through shopping at walmart or donating to MoveOn or the DNC. We own the party.

Without us their is no democratic party. We hold all the power. We need to organize and start using that power to shape the party and our country.

:dem:

[Boosterman]

17. Seems like a poorly thought out message

Which would bode ill for their actual running of the party.

So whats the matter? Did they lose the receipt?

[high density]

18. Dumbest political email of the post campaign season

When I got that email I couldn't believe what I was reading. I'll agree that the Democratic party has some major problems, but sending out such a belligerent public email probably isn't the way to start fixing things.

[Eric J in MN]

21. Their message was that the grassroots owns the Dem. Party,

not MoveOn itself.

The "we" in "we own it" is the grassroots.

[LSdemocrat]

25. No one group owns the party. The people do.

Now it is time for the people to take control of the party from the bottom up. That is the way it must occur. Ordinary people taking control of our state parties then, working together, taking on the DC establishment to revamp the party completely.

MoveOn may be used as an organizing tool, but by no means should the people take orders from them.