A02994
Articles : IraqMore on MoveOn and the Dems
On Sunday, March 18, Sheldon Rampton and I wrote ““Iraq: Why Won’t MoveOn Move Forward?”:http://gnn.tv/articles/2983/Iraq_Why_Won_t_MoveOn_Move_Forward”, an article now widely circulated online. It has helped to focus debate on whether the Democratic Party is really attempting to end the war in Iraq, or is content to simply manage the war for supposed electoral advantage in 2008.
The liberal advocacy group MoveOn has 3.2 million members. Yesterday MoveOn misleadingly claimed that the results from their recent member survey showed overwhelming support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill on Iraq. “The results are in from our poll on whether to support Speaker Pelosi’s proposal on Iraq: 84.6% of MoveOn members voted to support the bill,” according to MoveOn. However, this claim flunks the smell test and is far far from accurate.
MoveOn is engaging that oldest of PR games known as ‘lies, damned lies and statistics.” The truth is that 96% of MoveOn’s 3.2 million members did not even bother to vote in their member survey. MoveOn informed this reporter that about 126,000 people voted in what I pointed out to them was a very biased pro-Pelosi poll. The MoveOn question essentially provided a choice of Pelosi and peace (Yes), or Republicans and war (No). Gee, guess how that one gets answered?
The real news is that 96% of MoveOn’s huge list did not vote with them to support the Pelosi bill. When MoveOn says 84.6% of their members chose Pelosi’s bill, they mean 84.6% of the measly four percent of their members who bothered to open their email and respond. A polling of members in which 96% do not vote is no polling at all. Unfortunately MoveOn, while claiming to represent their overwhelmingly anti-war membership, is being unaccountable and anti-democratic.
An article in Politico.com makes clear the crucial role MoveOn has played by supporting the Democratic leadership over the large caucus of pro-peace progressive Democrats. Here’s a description of how the MoveOn survey was used inside the Capitol: “A jovial Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger went up to fellow Maryland Rep. Albert Wynn as he sat off the floor with a reporter and told Wynn that a vote against the bill was a vote for Republican victory. He waved a copy of the MoveOn.org press release backing the measure. ‘Have you seen this?’ Ruppersberger asked. ‘Yeah, who did that?’ replied Wynn, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus.”
The biased “poll” that MoveOn emaiied to its 3.2 million subscribers reads like a Soviet ballot. Many liberal strategists inside the Beltway believe that that what the House leadership is doing is smart and practical politics. In fact, this is back room power politics of the worst sort, a cynical ‘Let It Bleed’ strategy that abandons efforts to halt the war and is geared toward getting Democrats elected in 2008 by blaming the continuing quagmire of the Iraq occupation on the Republicans.
The American people deserve leadership and honesty from their political representatives and from groups that claim to be representing them. A choice between Republican or Democratic gamesmanship on Iraq is no choice at all when it allows the dying and suffering of tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to go on, all for some campaign leverage down the road in 2008. As confused as the American public has been by the Bush propaganda that sold the war, and the failure of the mainstream media to confront and expose it, there is now a solid majority of Americans who want the US out now or in the very immediate future. They are not being served by partisan gamesmanship, nor is their country.
John Stauber is Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin. He can be reached at: john [at] prwatch.org
Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...
RELATED ITEMS
- Iraq: Why Won't MoveOn Move Forward?
Posted by anthony on Monday, March 19th 2007
In fact, this is back room power politics of the worst sort, a cynical ‘Let It Bleed’ strategy that abandons efforts to halt the war and is geared toward getting Democrats elected in 2008 by blaming the continuing quagmire of the Iraq occupation on the Republicans
if that were true, wouldn’t the democrats be supporting the more radical proposal that they know wouldn’t pass (the one for pull out by 2007), so then it will fail and they can blame it on republicans?
Stauber appears to contradict himself.
one big old clusterfuck.
No. They can’t take the chance that Bush would agree to it.
but they knwo he wouldn’t agree with either of them. .
Sure he would, if the Repubs thought it would tank the Dems.
If Bush came out tomorrow and told the country that he couldn’t, in good conscience, leave American troops in battle under the threat of the Dems pulling funding? That he was forced, by the evil Dems, to allow the terrorists a great victory?
That he was forced to abandon the Iraqi population to the insurgents because the Left wanted to score political points?
You know that would be enough…
Needless to say MoveOn is not happy with Stauber’s articles. We asked them to provide a response, which we’ll run immediately after receiving it. In the meantime, a MoveOn official informed me of an error in the article:
Correction:
Stauber writes: “We were informed by Most of MoveOn’s members probably ignored and failed to open the email, since nothing in the subject line indicated it was particularly important.”
MoveOn writes:
The email’s subject line was: “Important Decision on Iraq”. So….the word “important” doesn’t signal that we think it’s “important”?
GNN has corrected the article to reflect that new information.
That he was forced to abandon the Iraqi population to the insurgents because the Left wanted to score political points?
He could say whatever the fuck he wanted so long as they got outta there. The majority of America wants out, and even the wishy-washy mainstream would probably see such a statement as purely sour grapes.
In any case… That’s a damn pipe dream.
On a side note…
Good to see you taking your darling Dems to task, Anthony. But it really begs the question: What are you going to do if election time rolls ‘round and the only “votable” candidates are shitheads that might not even get us out of Iraq, and might even get us into Iran?
My current outlook is like this… Repuke President 2008: Quagmire Iran (With America leading the way). Global – and perhaps catastrophic – instability. Demorat President 2008: Quagmire Iran (With Israel bombing Iran, possibly invading and surely dragging us into it). Global – and perhaps catastrophic – instability.
To me, it is looking as if your idea of “strategic voting”, even based on this one single issue alone, is going to be utterly fruitless. This may change in time, but paint me cynical, man. If we got a Republican, we’ll hear more speeches about “protecting freedom”, “spreading democracy”, and other aggressively patriotic bullshit. With a Democrat it’ll be, “We wanted only peace, but we have no other alternative”. Playing at being reluctant.
I’m not endorsing Nader, or anyone… But something needs to be done or your vote will only be a reward for their charlatanism. You think they’ll keep us from war? What about all the executive powers the Neo-cons have granted themselves… You think corrupt Dems are gonna let go of that, or do you think they’re gonna just quietly take up those reins themselves? Did it occur to you that the Neo-cons knew that they wouldn’t be able to sit in the driver’s seat for longer than 8 years? There’s strategy going on all right, but their strategy is several steps ahead of yours, man.
Bottom-line: By letting Bush and his pals continue to run amok, the Democrats are strengthening their own position. The more Bushit that Dubya gets away with, the more the Dems know that they can get away with themselves.
On Edit: Sigh… American politics is such an ugly beast…
I can see what you’re saying, truthie, but I think the far more likely possibility would be Republicans fillabustering the bill, and if it passed, bush saying it’s illegal/unconstitutional and saying he can’t enforce, which of course would be bullshit, and it’d just get tied up in court long enough for the 2008 election, or longer.
Considering bush’s previous record of basically not caring about the law, it’d be more probable than him actually letting the dems get the troops pulled, getting Iraq’s resources is probably more important to Bush and his circle than something temporary like the 2008 election.
There’s a difference between pressuring the Dems in office to actually end the war, and voting in a presidential election, which because of the nature of the electoral college forces you to vote strategically to avoid helping to elect your least favorite candidate.
There’s a difference between pressuring the Dems in office to actually end the war
Pressure? What pressure? If they think they can cruise their way into office no matter what, there is no pressure.
Unfortunately, the only way to hold them to account is to deny them their self-gratifying dreams of legacy. The only “pressure” we’re left to apply is to not hand them our votes (and our dicks) in desperate resignation. Whatever else you wanna say or do doesn’t really mean shit to them. Just the damn truth.
Yeah, you’re probably right…
Here is the email that move on sent:
Dear MoveOn member,
We’ve got a big decision coming up this week, and we need to make it together, as a community.
As early as Wednesday, the House may vote on a Democratic proposal on Iraq. The proposal was put together by Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Obey and Murtha. It is going to be a close vote—the Republicans are against it and some conservative Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill.
Most, but not all, of the progressives in Congress are planning on voting for the bill. These progressives, like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war. And President Bush is threatening to veto it for the same reason.
I’ve told Rep. Murtha that this was a decision for MoveOn’s members to make. Now I’m asking you to help make it. Should we support or oppose the Democrats’ plan? Just click here to register your view:
Support the Plan.
Not Sure
Oppose the Plan
Here are a few articles you can use to get a sense of what’s in the plan:
* Bush: Dems Trying to Micromanage War (AP, 3/17/07) * House Panel Approves Bill to Fund War, Set Timeline (Washington Post, 3/16/07)MoveOn is a member-directed organization—we believe that all of us, together, are smarter than any one of us. Thanks for your help making this call—and for everything you do.
Sincerely,
–Eli and the whole MoveOn.org Political Action Team Sunday, March 18th, 2007
Then today they sent action on this ridiculous bill which sounds like Bush’s plan:
Dear MoveOn member,
The debate around whether to set a date certain to bring our troops home is at a critical point. The vote could come as soon as tonight and it is going to be incredibly close.
Rep. Baldwin really needs to hear from you right now. Her vote could mean the difference between setting a date to end the war, and handing the president another blank check.
Can you call Rep. Baldwin and ask her to support the Iraq Accountability Act as a first step to bringing our troops home?
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin
Phone: 202-225-2906
Then please click below to let us know that you called:
http://political.moveon.org/call?tg=FHWI_02&cp_id=468&id=10062-1375992-qll3m8&t=2
Rep. Baldwin has been one of our strongest leaders on Iraq and her work has brought us this far. We all want to see a stronger plan that brings our troops home sooner but right now, it’s very important that we take this first step together. The Republicans are united against it and Democrats must work together to pass it.
You should mention on your call that you support Rep. Baldwin in pushing for anything that strengthens the Iraq Accountability Act—like the Lee Amendment—too. But please emphasize that in the end, we should support this bill as progress toward bringing our troops home.
The critical piece of this plan is that it sets a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq—it sets a date certain to end the war. President Bush doesn’t want to set a deadline to exit Iraq1—his policy would strand our troops in the middle of what has become a religious civil war.
Please call Rep. Baldwin today.
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Eli, Karin, Marika and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Thursday, March 22nd, 2007
Sources
1. “Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats’ Iraq Plan,” Washington Post, March 9, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2434&id=10062-1375992-qll3m8&t=3
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:
http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=10062-1375992-qll3m8&t=4
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
The bill (pdf) supports Bush’s call that Iraqi’s take charge. While ignoring the fact that the elected government was elected by a minority and obviously it wasn’t free if you have seen Iraq in Fragments where people are told who to vote for as they get ballots. Not only does it demand so called bench marks it fails to address the reason for unrest in the humiliating and brutal occupation which has made life worse than pre-invasion Iraq.
http://www.freewebs.com/cowboyhippie/
Cut and run
Wednesday, Mar 28, 2007
Well maybe this is it! The terrorists won! It’s alright we can lose over 3000 innocent lives but 3000 soldiers to fight back we can not stand for. There is roughly 270,000,000 Americans and 3000 isn’t that much. So its OK. We need to pull out of Iraq and then Afghanistan, before we make the middle east mad. Iran kidnaps 15 British but it’s Tony Blair’s fault. Hezbollah attacks Israel and that’s OK because Israel doesn’t deserve a country because their Jews! Big bad america is a bully, shame on us. The new America wants the world to know that its OK to attack us because were bad! Our soldiers are dumb ass rednecks who like to kill innocent people. Send our soldiers home because their dumb and don’t know any better. Please forgive us! You can attack us, but we wont fight back long we don’t have the stomach for it, just like Osama said! War is bad unless its against us. Now we need to impeach Bush because he fought back after all he’s a dumb redneck too. Its alright if Iran nukes a couple of our major cities cause we have too many. Just act like it never happened!
You can attack us, but we wont fight back
Just like Jesus the Christ.
Peace.