MoveOn Is Not New to Supporting War

[davidswanson]

While General David "Betray Us" Petraeus must be thrilled with his conversion from traitor to saint in the eyes of the pseudo-left and amazed that such things can be accomplished simply by changing the political party of the president, the group that formerly bashed him with an ad in the New York Times and now supports whatever Obama does is not as new to supporting wars as this simple story suggests.

Sure, MoveOn tripled its membership by opposing the invasion of Iraq and now won't utter a word against the escalation of war in Afghanistan or the continuation of war in Iraq, but MoveOn's opposition to war never extended to opposing pro-war Democrats, and did not survive the Democrats' congressional victories in 2006. The Congress that was elected in 2006 to end the war voted in March 2007 (and repeatedly thereafter) to fund it. Congresswoman Barbara Lee was not permitted to offer for a vote her amendment, which would have funded a withdrawal instead of the war. Groups that supported Lee's plan over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's included United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, US Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com, Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, Veterans for Peace, the Green Party, and disgruntled former members of MoveOn.org.

True Majority was a late addition to the list. The organization polled its members. Did they favor the Pelosi bill to fund the war but include various toothless restrictions on it, or did they favor the Lee plan to use the power of the purse to end the war by the end of the year? Needless to say, True Majority's membership favored the Lee plan.

MoveOn polled its membership without including the Lee alternative, offering a choice of only Pelosi's plan or nothing. Amazingly, Eli Pariser, then director of MoveOn, admitted that the reason MoveOn did this was because they knew that their members would favor the Lee amendment. The following is from a report on Salon.com:

"Pariser defends his e-mail. He says that the group already knew that its members would have supported Barbara Lee's plan, but whatever MoveOn did, it would never have passed. What MoveOn didn't know was what its members thought about the Pelosi plan. 'The choice that we needed to make as an organization was, Do we support this thing or not?' Pariser says. 'And so I think the e-mail was a very fair presentation of the choice that was actually in front of the organization.'"

Pariser was simultaneously admitting that he knew his members favored the Lee amendment to quickly end the war by defunding it, and claiming that he did not know whether his members preferred Pelosi's weak anti-war gestures to nothing at all. This made no sense. Were we supposed to imagine that Pariser honestly believed there was some chance that his membership would read his praise for Pelosi's bill and then vote for nothing at all instead of supporting it? Of course not. The point of the poll was to allow MoveOn to announce that its membership supported Pelosi rather than Lee. The poll served to give cover to "progressive" Democrats in Congress who gave their support to Pelosi after having intended to vote no on Pelosi's bill unless it included Lee's amendment.

Pariser believed he knew better than MoveOn members what was good for them. He didn't let them make the supposed mistake of backing Lee rather than Pelosi, because Lee's amendment supposedly could never pass, while Pelosi's bill could. There are three problems with this, other than the arrogance and dishonesty. One is that, as Bob Fertik pointed out, even if Lee's amendment did not pass, a vote for it would have helped to build war opposition in Congress, Pelosi's bill could have still passed too, and other amendments could still have been denied a vote.

The second problem is that we have no proof that Lee's amendment could not have been passed. A third of the Democrats had already taken similar positions. The leadership could have brought another third on board. And relentless pressure and threats and bribes of the sort that Pelosi in fact aimed at progressives could have brought many of the right-wing Democrats along. And if it had failed, and the Republicans and Republican-lite Democrats had voted down the bill, it would have been clear who stood where, and Pelosi could have announced victory and the end of the war. The Pentagon had more than enough money to safely bring the troops home right away without Congress passing any bill at all.

The third problem is that, even if Pelosi had insisted on passing a bill, it is not at all clear that voting down this particular bill would have been worse than passing it. Pelosi would have been forced to come back with another bill, as she knew she would be anyway when her bill failed in the Senate or was vetoed. But the second bill could have been drafted with more influence from the progressives if they had voted down the first bill. In fact, if the Progressive Caucus ever stood up for what it was supposedly committed to, maybe it wouldn't have to complain about being ignored and disrespected and the only caucus Obama hasn't met with.

But, how can we be sure that Pariser viewed his poll of MoveOn members not as a contest between Pelosi and nothing, but as a contest between Pelosi and Lee? Well, because Pariser told the news journal the Politico just that:

"In the poll, MoveOn.org gave its members a choice of supporting, opposing or being 'not sure' of the plan proposed by the Democratic leadership, according to an e-mail sent to members Sunday by MoveOn.org official Eli Pariser. It did not mention a more aggressive withdrawal proposal backed by --Rep. Lynn-- Woolsey, --Rep. Maxine-- Waters and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Pariser said MoveOn.org had held out as long as possible before backing the leadership proposal. 'We were basically declining to take a position as long as we could to strengthen the hand of the progressives. We did the poll at the last time we felt we could have an impact on the final vote.' He said he would support the progressive proposal if it came to a vote. 'We'll encourage people to vote for that and for the supplemental,' he said. 'We are trying to end the war. That's the mandate.'"

So, Pariser held off as long as possible to run a rigged poll and announce support for Pelosi's bill, in order not to actively work against the Lee Amendment. But working to support the Lee Amendment never crossed his mind, and he avoided asking his members about it because he knew they would favor it. But the progressives were not at that point pushing for a pretentious and meaningless vote on Lee followed by backing for Pelosi. They were pushing for a Yes vote on Lee and a No vote on Pelosi unless it included Lee.

If Pariser thought he knew so much about what was possible and what was not, why didn't he lay that case out to MoveOn's membership? Why didn't he offer the choice of backing Lee's position but make his argument that it would be futile? Did he not trust MoveOn members to make the right decision? That seems strange given the lines that can be found at the bottom of any MoveOn Email:

"Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at…."

Clearly MoveOn needs to work on distinguishing "member driven" from "member funded." So do a great many other organizations. I offer MoveOn only as an example. And the work would not be difficult, I think, consisting -- as it would -- primarily of refusing to be corrupted by the influence of party leadership. Many organizations resist this influence in some cases, but not in others. Some resist it entirely.

More than anything else, we need well-organized and powerful activist organizations, and media outlets, that are truly independent. Wars should not be the play things of partisan politics. Citizens' independent organizations should not approve of the greatest horrors yet conceived or oppose them, solely dependent upon the party membership of the war makers. This amounts to playing games with people's lives and the security and well being of all of us.

The war in Afghanistan has not been justified, is no more morally defensible than the war in Iraq, and is guaranteed to result in disaster, if we do not ask the right questions now.

Our government has committed to removing all troops from localities in Iraq by the end of June 2009, and removing them from bases in the country by the end of 2011, but the military is openly planning to violate that first commitment and to rename troops as "non-combat" troops. Sadly, their deaths and injuries, and those they cause, will be all too real. What are your congress member and senators planning to do this summer if troops have not been removed from localities or if the Iraqi people have not been permitted to vote, as promised, on the future of the occupation? You should feel free to raise such questions even if MoveOn will not.

You should also feel free, if you want to support peace, to get involved in any or all of the organizations that put peace ahead of party, organizations that collectively are much larger and more active than MoveOn: United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of America, US Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com, Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, Veterans for Peace, and many more.

[Occam Bandage]

1. When you've progressed to bashing MoveOn for being too centrist,

maybe, just maybe, you've lost all sense of anything that might be called perspective.

[Two Americas]

16. untrue and an ad hominem attack

You are casting suspicion on the messenger rather than addressing the message. The OP is talking about the inconsistency by Moveon. That would be important regardless of centrist, left whatever.

It is a lie that Moveon is being "bashed for being too centrist" and it is an ad hominem attack to speculate about the messenger in disparaging ways.

Opposition to war is not left or right, nor are matters of integrity. You portray a criticism of the lack of integrity by Moveon, and opposition to the war, as far left somehow - through dishonest hints and insinuations - in order to then have people dismiss the message.



...

[Occam Bandage]

23. I know DUers really like the word "ad hominem."

They like to shout it like kids shout "punchbuggy" when they see a VW Beetle rolling past their school bus. But let's save it for when it's actually used, mm? An ad hominem is when a personal trait is used to cast asparagus upon a line of argument. I've done the converse; I've taken the OP's line of argument and used it to suggest a personal trait. That's nothing but an insult.

[TBF]

24. "... to cast asparagus... " ooookay... n/t

[Occam Bandage]

26. It's an intentional malapropism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=%22cast+asparagus%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

Inside joke on DU, often involving freeper-mocking. Sometimes just to be silly.

(Upon seeing your profile, and that you were not in fact new, I decided that "welcome to DU" could be taken as insulting)

[TBF]

27. Ah, very good, thanks! n/t

[TBF]

51. No I didn't take it as such - I found DU early in 2008 when I volunteered

to help on the Obama campaign. I don't know about many of the early inside jokes, though some du'ers have sent me links as you did. No worries.

[Two Americas]

46. won't be long now

Won't be long before the asparagus starts coming in. I am going to cast some into a pan and saute it up.

Just think, fresh produce right off the tree, bramble, or out of the field for the next 6 months! Can't wait. This year my mission is to find more heirloom grape varieties.


...

[Two Americas]

32. it is quite simple

When you divert the discussion from the message to the messenger, and then speculate and insinuate, that is an attack on the messenger rather than the message.

"Suggesting a personal trait" - clever euphemism. "Making speculative insinuations about the messenger" is more like it.


...

[iamthebandfanman]

74. i know trolls like to disable the profiles

but what are you hiding?

[cali]

29. bzzzzt. that is not an ad hominem attack. A good example of an

ad hom attack is in this thread however, wherein the poster call Obama a "rancid puke". Now that's a sterling example of an ad hominem attack.

[Two Americas]

36. Obama is not here

An ad hominem attack is a debate tactic through the use of a logical fallacy, diverting the discussion away from the topic and onto your opponent: an attack, in a debate, on the messenger rather than on the message.

From the Nizkor Project:

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Obama is not a participant in this discussion, so it is not possible to use any logical fallacies against him in a debate that he is not even present for, let alone engaged in.

I have long suspected that many people here do not know the definition of the term ad hominem - they think it means "harsh talk" or "things I don't like hearing" or something. The word "attack" probably throws them.


...

[cali]

38. only hypocrites can't forgive hypocrisy. I forgive you.

that he's not here, hardly makes it less of an ad hominem attack. And the poster you're referring to did NOT make an ad hom attack on the OP. He rather gently questioned his judgment.

You're always trying to shut down debate here with shit like this.

[Two Americas]

43. the "reverse" approach

Someone objects to another person trying to shut down debate, and then they are the ones accused of trying to shut down debate?

The right wingers have raised this sort of "reverse" debate tactic to an art form. People objecting to racism are accused of "reverse racism." People objecting to mistreatment of workers are accused of "fomenting class warfare." People defending women or GLBTQ people or people of color from bigotry, are themselves accused of being bigoted against men, or heteros, or whites.

This debate tactic has become pervasive, and we see it in almost every thread here. It may well represent the greatest damage done by the right wing propaganda to the thinking of the American people. If everything "goes both ways," then nothing can ever be intelligently discussed.

By this logic, murder is to be seen as equal to accusing someone of the murder, since they could say "how dare you accuse me of murder, you terrible person you??" just as people here say "how dare you accuse me of being bigoted? That makes you bigoted!!" whenever bigoted statements are pointed out.


...

[HughMoran]

58. ssdd

You called it - they try to overpower all opposing viewpoints with constant and obsessive arguments in an attempt to control the debate. It's tiresome.

[Mithreal]

39. Thank you TA. nt

[Two Americas]

41. here we go

"When you've progressed to bashing MoveOn for being too centrist, maybe, just maybe, you've lost all sense of anything that might be called perspective."

And again the definition -

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).


...

[bornskeptic]

52. You conveniently leave out the part which refutes your claim.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. "

Clearly the reply which you labeled ad hominem referenced no fact about the author of the OP other than the content of his post.

[Two Americas]

71. it was clervely done

The attacks are getting more and more creative and clever, yes, and if people are absolutely determined to keep them up, there is no way to stop them, until there is no community and no discussion left. I think that is probably what is going to happen, so fear not - you will win.

If in fact the statement "when you've progressed to bashing MoveOn for being too centrist, maybe, just maybe, you've lost all sense of anything that might be called perspective" is actually about the message and not the messenger, where is the supporting evidence for that? Upon what basis are we to believe that the pother member has "progressed to bashing MoveOn for being too centrist?" How does that show us that the other member has "lost all sense of anything that might be called perspective?"

The other member has "progressed" and "list perspective" we are to believe, merely because the charge has been made.

Clearly an attack on the messenger. It doesn't talk about the message at all.

But as I said, you are going to win. The fight will not go away, and will only escalate. It is happening everywhere, and DU is merely a reflection of that. The party loyalists are going to fight to the death, no matter what the cost, and they have the money and the power on their side. They are going to win. But at what cost? That remains to be seen. Were I you, I would be more worried about that than I would about winning some petty little debate here with me. I can't win, because it is a free-for-all and even of you take the point, when you are debating with people who are willing to burn down the meeting hall before they will admit that, they will prevail - or claim to. Any who refuse to agree that they have won will be driven off or banned, one way or another. This is happening every day, which is why I ask "at what cost?" So it is no longer a discussion, but a fight to the death.



...

[BlooInBloo]

35. Yup.

[burythehatchet]

2. Already removed myself from MoveOn membership rolls.

2008 was The Greatest Punking of All Time.

Ashton Kutcher is so jealous.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Yes, "punked" in the "told you exactly what he was going to do over and over again" sort of way.

Maybe all those times you thought you were paying attention to the election, you were accidentally watching old DK speeches on YouTube or something.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

5. "when I can I will help destroy him and his rancid party."

Why are you on Democratic Underground then?

[burythehatchet]

6. 9 years of vesting, relationships, friendships

don't expect to be here long, though. The Obama machine is on its way to co-opting many formerly liberal venues.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Might you find a board that does not involve the 'rancid' Democratic Party you wish to 'destroy?'

[burythehatchet]

9. Trust me, we'll be gone soon, through our choice or the choice of the owners

the centrist virus is already in full control of the board.

[Occam Bandage]

11. So why are you here then? If you hate this board and most people on it,

and believe the ownership of this board is going to get rid of you, why are you still here?

[flyarm]

37. seems to me I have known Burythehatchet a long time here at du..

and he doesn't hide his profile..why do you?? and I don't remember you in the way back machine..but I sure as hell know who Burythehatchet is..and have always respected him and his opinions and support here on DU..but you Occam Bandage..I only see you as a shit stirrer..god forbid anyone hold Obama accountable for his actions..see I must be from another generation..i pay my taxes..and I follow the constitution..we the people , I believe that is my responsibility even if jesus christ was president!

Burythehatchet..I left here for a long time..but I refuse to give up my constitutional obligation..I will speak my mind and use the wisdom I have lived long enough to gain, and I will not let any damn person here or otherwise shut me up and shut up what my opinion is. I pay a damn lot of the taxes that are being pissed away currently, and I damn well have the right to speak my mind about it, and so do you! Do not let a bunch of cheerleading shills run you off!

I have now lived under 11 presidents..I believe I have a pretty damn good idea what is good and what is bad in any presidency..and I will speak out about the good and the bad...and loudly.

fly

[Occam Bandage]

57. Hold on. So BTH, who claims he wants to destroy Obama and the Democratic party,

holds respectable opinions. I, who want to destroy neither Obama nor the Democratic party, am therefore a "shit-stirrer." I disagree with your assessment of validity.

[Jack Sprat]

19. You are not alone, burythehatchet

There are centrists who are repulsive in their blind loyalty to a party instead of an idea. They need everyone before an election and wave goodbye to everyone as soon as time and etiquette allow. You made good points. No need to feel completely isolated. You convey the thoughts and disappointments of many of us.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Sadly, you've got it all wrong.

I have active loyalty to results. You have blind loyalty to ideas. And between the two of us, we'll lick the platter clean.

[anaxarchos]

40. Not to worry, BTH.

It don't mean nothin'. It took Shakespearean events (Bush, Cheney, etc.) to turn the Democratic Party into the "left". But there are a lot of homeless in here now. Let's see where this shit leads. "Centrist" - Hah... That will work real well. Maybe, Bayh will save them.

As for the locals, the Bandage is on some crazy-ass plan, the schoolyard bully kicks dogs and small children, and the guy with the campaign ribbon basically likes scaring the tourists.

It don't mean nothin'...

[cliffordu]

42. Right back atcha, sweet cakes!!!

:hurts:

[anaxarchos]

45. How long you been using that line...

...pal?

[cliffordu]

47. Just a couple of days on a couple threads, where the idjits gather

and badmouth others for not being left, or liberal or whatever enough.

I'll not condone purity tests.

On the other hand...

I have to wait for a little longer to see EXACTLY what Obama's going to do before I flush him and his Presidency.

The Republidems or conservadems or whatever they are should be marginalized and primaried.....

I'll wait to see what happens in a year or so. not much else to do, really....Except get hysterical....

And the level of hysteria is pretty funny lately....

The astonishing level of hatred in three months is pretty telling....

So I'll continue my hobby of scaring the tourists. And japing the jerkoffs.

Or I could get with the program and quote Nobel Prize winners who also fill the bill as self-aggrandizing bloviating attention whores.

And I'm sorry about your little friend, but his threats are over the line, hysterical or not.

[anaxarchos]

49. You're doin' your share...

of bloviating oh complicated one. If you knew jack about the issue you would know there ain't no such thing as the Nobel Prize for Economics. Nobel never heard of it (despite that big "N" that Krugman is standing on). It's a fookin' racket. The neo-liberals invented it and gave it to each other for years until the Nobel family blew the whistle on it. Since then, they created a "committee", which was so red-faced that they just give the "prize" to Clark Medal winners. That's how Krugman got it. Safe bet, you see?

Now, how is that ger-MAIN? Well, most of what is left of the Keynesian-FDR-New Deal shit that survived is in that crew. They ain't exactly clean (Krugman was on Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers; Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank) and they are anything but "left", but they are basically all that is left that is not Stockbrokers-R-Us. And you wanna get on him because he criticized yourBama or because you don't like his ass... and you wanna push some other guy who thought the whole known universe was gonna end in Y2K and that it didn't because billions were secretly spent on a conspiracy to prove him wrong (yeah, I read your thread)... and this makes sense to you?

You can "condone" anything you want or not, but you've got yourself twisted up into a pretzel. You might want to straighten out first.

As far as my "friend" goes, I've never spoken to him before. I just don't like your little friends.

...And you've been usin' that line a lot longer than a couple a days.

[cliffordu]

50. I'll be glad to come up with a new line as soon as you make sense.

Billions spent to prove who wrong??



And why does the spokesmodel on cnn keep telling me he's a nobel prize winner??

[anaxarchos]

53. She must be right, then...

..but, maybe not:

http://www.populistindependent.org/blogs/anaxarchos/

Start with "Eyes on the Prize"

or, try the ole Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_prize_economics

Scroll down to "Controversies".

While you are there, look up Jim Kunstler - your boy and well known crackpot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Kunstler

Kunstler, who has no formal training in the fields in which he prognosticates,<12> made similar dire predictions for Y2K as he makes for peak oil.<13><14><15> Kunstler responds to this criticism by saying that a Y2K catastrophe was averted by the hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent fixing the problem, a lot of it in secret, he claims.<16>

Kunstler has made several failed predictions regarding U.S. stock markets. In June 2005 and again in early 2006, Kunstler predicted that the Dow would crash to 4,000 by the end of the year.<17> <18> The Dow in fact reached a new peak of approximately 12,500 by the end of 2006. In his predictions for 2007, Kunstler admitted his mistake, ascribing the Dow's climb to "inertia combined with sheer luck".<19>

Sense are easy... dollars are hard.

[cliffordu]

56. lol...

I'm talking about his ideas about restructuring the country for sustainability...which doesn't include multinationals, neccessarily...And I know all about his trouble over at the oil drum.....and his looney tunes predictions...


Still, he's on to something with mass transit and walkable cities...Rewarding smaller farms and breaking up the agribusiness...

But I just like his off the hook rants on clusterfuck nation.....sometimes he nails it just right.

I am of the mind that we are completely fucked. There is absolutely nothing out there that makes me think that this can be brought under control....No one knows how deep the losses really are even at this late date.......I full expect a full blown depression, no matter what the Prez or the G20 or Krugman has to say about it.

The kind of malfeasance, selfishness and outright stupidity that allowed this entire nation believe we could become the "financial instruments" empire without actually making shit to sell that people can use has killed us. I don't know what we'll become.



Kunstler is right about 2 things.

Business as usual is dead, and the politicians can't understand it.

Energy costs are going to make it impossible to sustain the rebuilding of the infrastructure that supports the automobile culture.

And that is going to make people insane.

[anaxarchos]

61. Ask me for "sense"...

...and I am happy to oblige. No need to thank me. Happy to have been of service.

Ask me for the-wrath-of-god-divine-retribution-apocalyptic-feel-good-horseshit.... well, what can I tell ya?

Sorry, fresh out. But, good luck with all that.

Maybe the Bandage, the Bully, or the lady on CNN can help you out?

see ya around...

[cliffordu]

62. See ya in the soup line.

I can't understand how ANYONE can believe this culture is sustainable.

[anaxarchos]

64. Ya got me all wrong Cliffie...

Of course I don't believe that the "culture" is "sustainable". I just don't think that that verdict comes from Mother Nature, finite resources, "our" accumulated "sins" or anything else like that. I think "evil" walks on two legs and has a name (a veritable phone book full of names, actually).

The soup line is a very good place to meet. We can read the graffiti. The last soup gourmets had a good idea of how they got to be standin' there. We just got to get rid of those suburban cobwebs obscurin' our vision. "Our" policy, "our" bailout, "our" taxes.... we want "competence", I'm a tellin' ya... Hah.

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/business/gallery/2008/apr/14/economics.photography/[e-mail]

[cliffordu]

67. I'm talking about the culture of unbridled consumption....

You know, the one that confuses predatory capitalism and gluttony with Democracy.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

12. Watch out. You might be "destroyed."

You'd think someone out to destroy Obama and the Democratic party wouldn't have a name like "burythehatchet," but this board is surprising.

[cliffordu]

14. Curiouser and curiouser.....

:hi:

Howareya??

[Occam Bandage]

18. I'm keepin' on keepin' on,

and trying to avoid the wrath of the Destroyers.

:hi:

[cliffordu]

31. Yep - I know..

them DU destroyers are the meanest destroyers around!!!

[HughMoran]

59. rectified

:)

[burythehatchet]

13. dhurrrrrr

[cliffordu]

15. OMFG!!111!!!!!1 !!! ! IM dESTROYEEEd!! !!! !!

[cali]

20. no shit. let me second that suggestion of yours. Threatening to destroy the President

is way over the line.

[tnlefty]

17. Every time that I see your screen name, I think, 'in whose head?'

More and more my thought is the vultures and sewer rats on Wall St., who will get away with what they've done, without so much as a slap on the wrist.

I can't go as far as you plan to do. Baby steps...I didn't run for certain positions within my county party so I'm no longer bound by loyalty oaths, :puke:, and I'm free to write LTTEs equally critical of dems (the ones who need to be blasted) and repukes.

I hope that you stick around, I'll notice if you're not. :hug:

[Mari333]

8. kicked and recommended

thank you!

[cali]

22. This sort of shit is so counterproductive

Of course, I've never thought much of your ideological rants that are more against others on the left than anything else.

[Two Americas]

44. one of the best members

The OP is one of the best members here. You may disagree with the OP, but these comments add nothing to the discussion. Why don't you be honest and say that you disagree, and explain why and defend and support your point of view rather than merely sniping at the OP?


...

[cali]

55. that's a matter of opinion. I disagree.

I've gotten into it in detail with the OP in prior posts. Look it up. Now I pretty much don't bother. He's a dogmatist. And any individual or organization that varies even slightly from his script is invariably an evil collaborator. blah, blah, blah.

[Two Americas]

70. of course

Everything is just an opinion, and all opinions are equally valid. Right?

[specimenfred1984]

25. 70% of Americans are invested in war one way or another

It's a hell of a lot bigger than just MoveOn.org.. The U.S. is a country that tortures, that is currently harboring our own war criminals and the U.S. is also guilty of partaking in a passive genocide in Iraq. Look around DU, there are plenty of people here who could care less about holding any of the criminals accountable too.

I went to a couple of MoveOn-organized anti-war protests and every single person I met was anti-war, especially the Iraq fiasco/war crime. That directly contradicts what your post suggests.

[Doremus]

28. We need a DU PAC. nt

[Occam Bandage]

30. It would splinter.

[cali]

33. lol.

and quickly.

[Occam Bandage]

34. Actually, it already has. One of those crazy quantum mechanics things. nt

[NeedleCast]

60. I Believe you can find the math in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5362086

[H2O Man]

54. As one of the Chicago 7

defendants said, "We couldn't agree on lunch."

[Pastiche423]

48. Thank you, David!

Recommend.

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. David, another interesting thing about that MoveOn poll ~

I got the email and voted in the poll and then got the results that listed how many had voted and what they had voted for. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was far less than the number of members. But something like 80% of the voters had chosen the winning item on the poll.

Then not an hour later I turned on my radio and Ed Schultz was on interviewing Pariser. And Pariser said '80% of our members voted for this option in our poll'

So I emailed Eli and reminded him there was a HUGE difference between 80% of ALL their members and 80% of those who participated in the poll. And I was angry because not only had MoveOn left the best option out of their poll, now Eli was on the radio lying about the results!!

So about a week later I get a phone call from some regional MoveOn organizer wanting to assure me Eli had read my email and understood my concerns.

Hard to support an organization whose leader lies like this. I never give MoveOn any money and stopped signing up for their events too.

[kaygore]

65. I have been a strong MoveOn supporter BUT the organization

has fallen under the allure of access to insiders and Eli has hired his old college buddies to fill positions in the organization rather than getting new ideas and fresh blood.

I think that Mark Crispin has spoken to this on the "Who's Afraid of MoveON.org" film-- at least until Eli threatened to pull support from the project if criticism of the organization was left in the film.

MoveOn, unfortunately, is an example of the old adage: "Power corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

MoveOn claims to poll its members, but in truth skews the results by manipulation of the choices as Swanson notes in his article.

MoveOn is no longer a reliable voice for progressive action in this country; rather, they are a profitable money machine and they use the power generated from that money to seek, obtain, and maintain power at the expense of furthering its members' and a progressive and just agenda.

What a loss to us all!

[scarletwoman]

66. I'm going to dare to be ineloquent here & just say that I realized MoveOn sucks big time years ago.

They in no way, shape, or form represent the "left", they are strictly establishment liberals of the most self-indulgent, narcissistic kind.

I've had no use for them since 2002. I feel bad for all the folks duped into thinking that MoveOn represents some kind of "resistance". MoveOn is nothing but a haven for faux activists who want to feel like they're "doing something" without actually disrupting their comfy yuppie lives.

sw

[KG]

68. +1

very well said! :hi:

[scarletwoman]

69. Thanks!

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

72. Excellent run-down and thank you.

The relative quality and thoughtfulness of the supporting and dissenting responses (in the later case: reactions) is also illuminating.

[varelse]

73. Thanks for the update

guess I'll be movin' on away from Moveon ;)