MoveOn to victory in November and MoveOff the Bushie crime wave and MoveOn to real decency, real morality, real democracy and real survival. End the Iraq occupation and end the faulty Bush agenda which is building terrorism instead of diminishing it. No more torture because that too increases terrorism because it is terrorism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hardly embrace all of MoveOn's causes. But I compliment them on brains and effectiveness. When your opponent races around to "swift boat" you as the Right(or at least the neocon Right) does to discredit MoveOn, MoveOn has a wonderful ad to show potential supporters that it is effective and drives the GOP NUTS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with MoveOn -- and AlterNot -- is that both organizations are able to at least identify cause the of the problem with politics in this country: a supine and feckless (non)opposition that more often than not acquiesces to the radically conservative policies of the majority party.

Yet neither MorOn.org nor AlterNot are willing to call on their supporters/readers to abandon the Democratic Party, or at least those within the party who continue to enable the fascist policies of the a substantial segment of both parties.

Yes, MorOn.org and AlterNot both backed Lamont against Lieberman, but neither will say anything against Feinstein, who's pretty much a carbon copy of Lieberman (down to the annoying drone, the moralistic streak, and the tendency to back Republican initiatives that their party claims to oppose).

Nor will they consistently criticize Gore/Kerry (soon to be joined by Hillary) or the DLC for losing the last three elections (soon to be four), or call on their supporters/readers to actively withhold their votes from leading Democrats -- such as Bob Casey -- whose chief (and usually only) "virtue" is that the big "D" after their names.

Why should anyone vote for Democrats who don't actually represent their views? Just because their opponent is a Republican? How do you think those Republicans got their jobs in the first place, and have held on to them since? By going up against Democrats who were just a hair less conservative than they are. Why would any conservative vote for someone like that, and why should any liberal have to "hold their nose" and do so?

When will MorOn.org and AlterNot realize that their failed strategy of returning to the Democratic Party over and over again like battered spouses doesn't increase their chance of electoral success, or move the party toward policies that they claim to support? It just maintains the DLC and centrist consultants in position of power, where they in turn maintain their ongoing policy of subservience to the Republican Party.

It certainly doesn't alter the party's policies or strategies, and the few "new" faces -- Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and self-justifying clowns such as Rahm Emmanuel -- are a sick joke that would be funny if they weren't such pathetic, mealy-mouthed, polling-watching hacks.

If I read one more article in the mainstream press about what a tough, uncompromising, and militant liberal Nancy Pelosi is, I'm going to wet my pants. She couldn't lead a troop of girl scouts through a lawn sprinkler without dithering about it for months.

Harry Reid is Joe Biden with more hair (and about as interesting), and has been MIA for most of the last year; Rahm Emmanuel is a member of the pro-corporate Clinton cabal that knows it can count on the support of pro-Democrat groups such as MorOn.org and AlterNot without actually saying, much less voting for or even proposing anything one iota more liberal than the party's pollmonkeys tell them is absolutely necessary to "hold onto their base".

They don't care what you want, or what is actually important or necessary, they just want to win by making the fewest amount of actual changes, and -- failing that -- to continue to live off your money while doing nothing from one election to the next. Moron.org and AlterNot are little more than boosters for a Democratic Party Full-Employment Act.

This gang couldn't talk, think, vote, or act straight if their lives depended on it, but they know they don't have to, because groups such as MorOn.org and AlterNot will continue to support them no matter what they do (or don't do). Thus, their statements, votes, and policies (when they propose any at all), they are largely indistinguishable from the centrist Republicans such as as John McCain, Jim Jeffords, and Chuck Hegel ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is hard to criticize Move On. They have been successful and I sincerely urge everyone to join and to contribute because I agree with their politics. My only criticism is in their method. I think that there is a better and more direct way to achieve "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".

First. I think that it's not necessary to have an organization and second, I think it's not necessary to raise money. And in fact I think that it's fundamentally wrong for an organization to collect money to try to buy an election.

Move On is trying to beat the system. I think we should try to change the system.

Move On has three million members, the labor unions have seventenn million members, third parties have several million members, the AARP has thirty million, the NAACP has I don't know how many more millions of members, and there are millions more not happy with the system who don't belong to any organization. The main thing that these often disparate groups agree on is that they don't like the system. If they want to change the system that many people in a true grassroots movement could do it. And they could do it in a matter of days.

The question boils down to this. Do we Americans want a republic or do we want a system that's run by special interest groups? Do we want our own special interest group to be able to buy political favor? In short do we want our government to be decided by money or by votes.

If you want to change the system join The Lincoln Initiative.
Bob Reichenbach.
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was at the checkout paying for my groceries in a Florida supermarket. A dressed up couple waited behind me. The girl at the cash register asked if I wanted to give my change to some charity they were supporting.

I said, "I give my charity money to MoveOn."

She asked, "What's that?"

Before I could answer, the guy in the business suit behind me butted in with, "It's Communists!"

I was tempted to say, "And your wife is a pig!" because I figured he'd take a swing at me and I could legitimately put a Repug in the hospital. But I held my temper. The legal system here is dominated by Repugs from the cops in the street to the judges. Liberals get short shrift when it comes to justice and equality. But I think this example shows you who dominates Florida politics--semi-literate, rednecks who suck up Regressive propaganda like a pig sucking slop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This may come as a shock to Republicans but Move On does not seek your approval or need your guidance. They're doing just fine, thank you. Stop the patronizing.The world is tired of your superior attitude. The Republican Party can't boast of any achievements in the last six years. All that's left for them to do is trash everything and everybody. Not at all original. The country needs new blood, lots of it. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joshua,

You are one of my journalist young stars. This is the most disappointing piece I have ever seen you write.

Yes, their toolset is awesome, and their impact is great. Yes, they try to pull their party toward the left.

But, you fail to recognize MoveOn for the party shill that it is. Give me PDA instead any day. At least, they are honest about it.

You write: "MoveOn’s ability to bundle small campaign contributions from tens of thousands of rank-and-file progressives and challenge candidates backed by the full weight of the American corporatocracy ..."

What about when they bait-and-switch to lull progressives into inadvertently supporting "candidates backed by the full weight of the American corporatocracy" just because these candidates are Democrats and MoveOn is a willing participant in the "take back the House" campaign?

Which are the 30 contested races that they are working on? Why don't they put this information front and center for everyone to see? Is it because they will support any Democrat in a close race, no matter how bad? Even Democrats who vote for the Iraq war, military courts, and warrantless surveillance?

You write: "What makes MoveOn's organizing model so threatening to those safely ensconced inside the Washington Beltway is that MoveOn, unlike its counterparts on the right, is largely bottom up, driven by constantly polling their members about which issues to focus on and which campaigns to support."

Really!? Their engine for this purpose is a silly diversion. Try wading through 60,000 entries to cast your vote. Why did they sit out the Iraq war for nearly two years, when most of their membership surge initially came from this issue? (See Norm Solomon's excellent pieces taking them to task on this on other points.)

Try getting in contact with their leadership (as a regular person, not as a journalist). MoveOn is a tightly controlled, inaccessible hierarchy that masquerades as a grassroots organization. Don't get me wrong. I participate in their events, when they present me with an issue I support.

But, recognize that they are a willing tool of the Democratic Party. VotersForPeace is a case in point. MoveOn leadership refuses to put this issue to its "membership" (which is really more of a giant mailing list in a strictly one-way flow of ideas). Why? Because the Iraq war busts wide open their Democratic fallacy that refuses to recognize the fact that nearly all of the party leadership are spineless "hawks" who capitulate to continued militarism in our society.

I sincerely hope you revisit this piece, dig in deeper, and show the other side too.

Respectfully,

Bill Scheurer

The PeaceMajority Report
www.PeaceMajority.org

Bill Scheurer for Congress
www.BringOurTroopsHome.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article refers to Mr. Bush as President Bush. When Carter
and Clinton were President, they were rarely refered to by their opponents as President Carter or President Clinton. The reason is that names, words and titles have a subtle power to effect the mentalities of people. It is the power of suggestion. The more Bush is referred to as "President Bush", the more his position as "Leader of the Free World" is strengthened. The more Carter and Clinton were referred to as "Mr.", the less presidential they were thought of. Let's start calling Dubya
in articles as "Mr. Bush", and give the conservatives a dose of their own medicine. This is a more powerful medicine than some might think, but it is a building medicine. It doesn't take effect overnight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Geiger:

As someone who spends a lot of time on the official web sites of our U.S. Senators, I can tell you without hesitation that if one of them casts a vote they are proud of, a press release will be up faster than George Felix Allen can spit out a racial slur.

Today, the 12 Democrats who checked their consciences at the Senate cloakroom and voted in favor of the Bush Administration's torture bill, have almost nothing to say about their votes. In case you haven't seen the roster of who voted with Republicans on this, here they are:

Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Of these, only four have issued press releases commenting on their vote and, amazingly, those who are talking spend most of the time sounding apologetic for a vote they obviously know they should not have cast.

"I think there are some unknown constitutional issues and it may take a review by the Supreme Court before we really know whether this approach has towed the line in terms of protecting the civil-liberties of American citizens or whether it has gone over the line," said Tim Johnson (D-SD), in a brief statement that can only leave us wondering why the hell he voted for it then.

Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) expresses a whole bunch of concerns as well and yet voted to make Bush Torturer-in-Chief anyway.

“The bill I voted for today was the best bill we could reasonably expect in this highly charged political environment," said Salazar. "Due to the many controversial and far-reaching implications of this bill, I believe it would be appropriate to force Congressional review of this bill in five years. I have concerns with this bill, but on balance it meets my personal view of what America needs to get the job done.”

But some things never change, and here was the biggest DINO (Democrat in name only) in the Senate, Nebraska's Ben Nelson crowing about what a wonderful vote he cast and making this strange statement: “This compromise goes a long way in protecting the principles of the Geneva Conventions and establishes a standard of treatment that the world will follow.”

Yeah, I'm sure most other countries are gathering right now to rewrite their laws to follow our sterling example.

Finally, we have Joe Lieberman, who has a press release announcing his vote and setting the bar awfully low for what it takes for him to follow George W. Bush.

“I voted for this bill because I believe it is better than the Administration's original proposal to respond to the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision," said Lieberman. "I would have much preferred the bill we reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I supported amendments to this bill because they addressed concerns I had. I regret that they were rejected by the Senate.”

But Joe clearly did not regret it enough to vote the right way on the torture bill.

There's currently a big argument going on in the Progressive community on the tension between calling Democrats on stances that are so antithetical to what being a Democrat is supposed to mean and making Republicans positively gleeful by bashing our own side six weeks before a crucial election.

That's a tough call to make. But it seems reasonable to question why, on a vote that is such a bellwether on where American democracy stands in 2006, these 12 Senators cast deciding votes that they were unsure about or that, deep down, they flat-out knew were wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

to make a large donation to Move On.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm generally supportive of MoveOn's aims and the candidates they support, but to call the group a success is a stretch -- virtually every candidate they support loses. And I'm dismayed when I see the group successfully channel millions of dollars to transnational media corporations instead of funding grassroots work to advance democracy and attack corporate rule.

If you want real change, fund groups creating change!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joshua,

Your entry here states that MoveOn.org raised over $9 million from 125,000 who donated an average of less than $50. But if 125,000 people donated $9 million, simple arithmetic tells us the average donation is $72. Did you mean something other than what I understood you to mean?

$72 still isn't a huge average donation; I'm just trying to understand your story (since it's rather contrary to my understanding of MoveOn) and my first step is making sure the pieces fit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 1960, a raging controversy emerged regarding the Democratic hopeful for the presidency. Because he was Catholic, some citizens feared that he would owe his allegiance to the Vatican rather than the Constitution. Granted, many of those voices came from anti-ethnic and anti-Catholic groups, but the basic question was a fair one, no matter the motivation behind it. The Vatican teaches that since the pope is God's representative on earth and his spokesman (according to Catholic doctrine), this principle translates to loyalty to the pope over loyalty to the state. Most American Catholics did not share this interpretation back in 1960. President John F. Kennedy publicly denounced the Vatican's interpretation repeatedly, seriously weakening the Vatican's position in the U.S. Given our Constitution, this was and is an appropriate and necessary stance to take, and one not willing to take it, should in all circumstances, NOT be elected as President of the United States. The vow taken by the President in his oath of office is to uphold the Constitution above all else.

But now, perhaps we should be asking this question of the leadership of the party in control of both the executive branch and the legislative branch. The similarities between the draconian teachings of the Pope and the proposed legislation threatened by Congressional leadership and sanctioned by the executive are striking. For example, just prior to the 2004 election, the Vatican issued guidelines for Roman Catholic politicians that underlined the church's opposition to abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and same-sex marriage and told Catholics not to promote laws that favor those practices. Lo and behold, many of the laws proposed since this papal edict reflect the Vatican's wishes.

In addition, Congressman Mark Foley who resigned several days ago from Congress, had been put in charge of a committee that protected exploited children after leadership knew of his proclivities with teenage boys. It is much like the Catholic hierarchy placing abusive priests in other parishes after problems arose in their former parishes. And recently, almost as an emphasis to George W. Bush's recent speeches in front of "friendly", hand-picked audiences where he mentions "Islamo-fascists" almost as much as the word "freedom", the Pope slams Islam. The Pope and the President are choreographed - they walk as one, in lock-step. This is a chilling prospect.

We should be outraged as Americans. We need to speak up and out. The Vatican should stay out of American politics. For the purposes of disclosure, I was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic church and am not anti-Catholic, I am merely honoring and respecting the Constitution above all else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, they're just party line Democrats. Look at their original purpose, and who they support. It takes a Lieberman to budge them off their automatic setting.

Beware their self-promotion: I'm one of those "members", because I'm on their list, but I wouldn't dream of giving them money. I get their stuff so I can keep track: and once in a long while, they come up with something worth supporting.

However, I agree that it's a great model. We need a similar setup that really is progressive, and doesn't care what party a good candidate is from.

We could call it "Real Majority", because polls show consistent majorities for liberal ideas like single-payer health care that Democrats refuse to work for. (With all those votes to be had, why would that be? Could it be the $?)

There is only one national progressive party, and it's the Greens. If they "can't win", it's because YOU don't vote for them, or work for them.

And yes, they need all the help they can get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MoveOn's strategy of attaching itself to the democratic party and its flawed, hawkish candidates - no matter what - is not a failed strategy.

If you look carefully at the DLC/DNC failures since 2000, it becomes very obvious that they aren't really trying to win. Both Gore and Kerry made big noises about "fighting for uncounted votes" then folded up like cheap tents. Both actually received more votes and won their respective elections. If they were serious about winning, why didn't they vigorously contest the obviously corrupt voting process?

That the DLC/DNC should distance themselves from the horrific policies of the current mis-administration is a given. Please don't suggest that they aren't smart enough to see and understand that. But that isn't their real purpose.

Acting as an actual opposition party is NOT part of the DLC/DNC platform. Their purpose is to fool people - many of them posting to this board - into believing that they're an opposition party, while continuing to support the current hawkish policies. Thus, those who want to engage in endless wars have complete control over both parties. They can't lose.

The bottom line: it doesn't matter which party "wins". Its all pretty much the same. Until the entire system gets up-ended, nothing will change.

I wish that more liberals realized that organizations like MoveOn and the DNC/DLC do not represent their interests - nor does the democratic party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And Democrats and the media have never blown any minor thing like this that the Republicans may or may not have done WAY out of proportion. Remember the RATS in the Democrats ad from years back that we never heard of then of. Now you Democrats know how it feels to be on the receiving end of potentially unfounded criticism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's a good description. democrats have been nothing more than lesser evils to me since reagan became president. A democrat majority went along with all reagan's bullshit ideas and budgets. I will not vote against people by voting democrat so I vote for whoever I think will do a good job. Kerry would not call for an end to the war. No, he wanted more money and troops. I would have gladly and proudly voted for him had he only called for an end to slaughter we've caused in Iraq.

I despised clinton because he was nothing more than a god damned conservative to me. bush has now shown how much better a god damn conservative is than a fucking nazi. I will continue to support the Libertarian party even though I lean towards socialism's economic principles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brabender Cox has used the bogeyman of MoveOn repeatedly in the past, as a club to whack any Democrat with. They've inlcuded such lines as, "________ is so liberal, she supports a group that compared Our President to Hitler!"

The problem for groups like MO, is that they can, if they aren't careful, become nothing more than this; shorthand spin fodder. It tends to undermine their mission and it makes many candidates back away from them, for fear the connection will be used against them.

Piltdownman

Piltdown Man

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone asked, "Would Gore have invaded Iraq?" Investigate this yourselves. Gore was quite the "regime change" proponent during the Clinton years and before. He was a cheerleader for the consolidation of big media, and went out of his way to convince Congress to pass the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He said it would be good for the country. Now he complains that big media is too big?!! Does he think we have short memories or just that we've moved our goal post to the right, or both? The American left supports a pro-NAFTA, pro-Telecommunications Act globalizer?

Gore would have voted in favor of the occupation, like MoveOn's John Kerry did. Both of these "most liberal Democrats" supported the sanctions against the people of Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. But would Gore have initiated it?

Moot question. That's the job for today's Repubs. The Dems' job is to make sure that people think they are an opposition but just powerless. They pretend to be "spineless," "afraid of their own shawdows," "timid," poor things (makes them seem harmless, doesn't it?)

The wishy-washy left bloggers (and you can find plenty of them on AlterNet) can't bring themselves to face the fact that the two main parties of the most powerful, dangerous, aggressive Empire the world has ever known are trading back and forth, playing good cop, bad cop at the expense of the world's people and the environment they inhabit. And the left has been going along too, convincing themselves that the Dems just need to be braver. Hey folks, don't fool yourselves, they have the cojones. Look what they've done in your name? It takes balls to slap your constituents in the face year after year. So stop saying they're weak! Did it occur to you that they might just be going along because they believe in it?

Kerry knew there were no WMDs, yet he supported the war for years until he put his political finger to the wind (The Pledge!). And did you know that top weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, begged him to vote against the invasion. Ritter gave Kerry an impressive stack of documents supporting the inspectors' position that Iraq had no WMDs and was not even close to being a military threat to the US, yet Kerry mouthed the lies, just like Bush did, and said Iraq had the weapons. Bush and Kerry have the same bosses, haven't you figured this out yet?

What did MoveOn's candidate Kerry do with this information from Ritter? He blocked Scott Ritter from taking it to Congress in the form of testimony. Again: A top weapons inspector begged MoveOn's candidate, John Kerry, to reasses his pro-war position and MoveOn's favorite candidate refused and the rest is history, bloody history.

So much for MoveOn.org. It's more than clear, they are a tool of the sold out Democratic Party. What they should have done is refused to support Kerry, period. They had the power to do this! With MoveOn's help, we could have forced the country in an entirely different direction. WE could have had a real movement. Instead, we are back where we started. Hillary Clinton will be our "choice" in 08.

What we need in this country is real resistance against entrenched power. MoveOn has demonstrated that they are not up to the job.

another interesting tidbit about Gore. I wanted to get to the bottom of his anti- global warming crusade. Could it be that pro-NAFTA, pro-big media, Al Gore has turned over a new leaf? Although he says he's not advocating nuclear energy, he certainly has been a cheerleader for it in the past. Do the research. Could he be a wolf in sheep's clothing? Maybe, maybe not. But I at least urge you to look into it rather than be led by MoveOn. This is serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joshua makes the point that Moveon is different in that it is able to raise money from a broad spectrum of rank and file progressives.

Yet, when I check http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/
I see that moveon.org has received $2.6Million from George Soros. Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance gave $2.5M. Hollywood's Stephen Bing gave $.97M, Herbert Sandler gave $2.5M.

More than half of their receipts came from 6 people.

What is really bizarre is the Soros money. His chief source of wealth is his Quantum Fund. This hedge fund is registered in the Netherland Antilles, a tax haven.

It is impossible to reconcile this representation of moveon.org as grassroot funding when a huge chunk of your budget comes from donations that were washed abroad tax free.

A more compelling case could be made that profits made from speculating on foreign currency are keeping moveon.org from sinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just blogged about MoveOn.org's revolutionary virtual phone bank program: HERE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]