Who’s a Sell Out?

9 Comments

1. 

   michaelmt on March 23, 2007 at 8:06 pm

   Move-on asked all members a logical question–and a difficult one. Is it better to pass the funding resolution and move on? What will the general voter understand? Why attack them here or anywhere for pragmatism?

   Look at MSM tonight. Every one of the jerks reported that only 218 reps supported ending the war. Not a single one reported that the number was fixed, and that another 20 or so voted no because it was not strong enough.

   We are too close to this. This community is made up of news junkies. The average voter is clueless. Every so often, it’s vital to stand back and see what they see–or maybe, grit our teeth and watch FAUX for five minutes.

   MoveOn has amazing technology. I wasn’t able to help the calling this week, but their system–find a willing voter and immediately hook them up to their representative–is great. They are progressive. They are allies. We don’t have to agree with every action. We are democratic.

   My concern tonight is that we are one vote short in the Senate of being able to stick that bill down the “Decider’s” throat. (He was apoplectic today!) If Johnson could show up to vote, it would pass. Anyone have a medivac helicopter handy?

   • 

     BooMan on March 23, 2007 at 8:35 pm

     1 vote?  more like 13-20.

     • 

       fairleft on March 23, 2007 at 8:51 pm

       you’re the majority when you’ve got only minority numbers means you lose. It won’t be pretty either.

2. 

   boran2 on March 23, 2007 at 8:52 pm

   When I read about this the phrase that immediately came to mind was selling out.  But perhaps there is more to this.  

3. 

   Max on March 23, 2007 at 9:43 pm

   is MoveOn progressive or really a Democratic netroot communication arm? As outsiders they pushed the outsider agenda – the relatively progressive agenda. But in the end they are Democrats not progressive; as are many of the “liberal” blogs who change from activists to politicos (aka David Sirota). There’s a difference. The former believe in the Democatic Party as an institution – lock stock and barrel – forever hopeful they can change the party by entering into a Faustian agreement. A progressive movement is not about old time party politics – pragmatic calculations. Movements shove they don’t acquiesce.

   Maxine Waters – to mention one – is an inside/outside progressive. Her position and others in the Get Out of Iraq Caucus had no voice in the faux survey that MoveOn sent out – a vote that pitted Pelosi’s bill against staying the course. The issues with the bill that was passed in the House are many; pragmatically speaking (to use the MoveOn/Sirota stance) in the end it will either not make it through the Senate or “time lines” will be eliminated leaving the incredible $124 billion for war/occupation more or less in tact – or it will get the veto boot.

   Only time will tell whether the Dems will actually achieve anything positive from this action. From this vantage point – the Repubs are still running the show; and the Dems are the party of wishful thinking because there is no real progressive party in the USA.

4. 

   Max on March 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm

   When I look for my true north, I’m always greeted with the words of Howard Zinn, the truest non-hypocritic north I’ve yet to find:

   From Zinn:
   As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. In response to the Bush Administration’s “surge” of troops, and the Republicans’ refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months. And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.

   That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal, saying that progressives in Congress, “like many of us, don’t think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.”

   Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war. It’s as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this with an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

   http://progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

5. 

   Alice on March 24, 2007 at 8:22 am

   I liked David Sirota’s response.

   These progressive lawmakers are true heroes because they are displaying a seriousness about ending the war, rather than merely a seriousness about protesting the war. Protest and pressure are critical in the lead up to legislative action – but when it comes time for that action, we hire lawmakers to do just that: make laws. That process does not tend to create perfect outcomes, and the supplemental is by no means perfect. But this bill, with its binding language to end the war, disproportionately tilts toward the antiwar side when looked at in the context of a Congress whose majority is unfortunately NOT antiwar. That’s a key point here: The majority of Americans oppose this war, and Democrats hold a majority in Congress, but the majority of Congress is not (yet) antiwar. That’s unfortunate and I don’t like it, but it’s a fact. Passing a bill this strong and binding, then, is a major step forward.

   Being an extremist, I want the world and I want it now – but being a grownup, sometimes I just wanna stop fighting and do what needs to be done.

   Like Bowers, the progressive lawmakers and everyone who supports their decision (yours truly included) to support the supplemental should not accept the concept that some will inevitably trot out claiming that voting against the bill and killing it out of supposed “purity” is a more “ethical” or “principled” stand than voting for the bill and solidifying binding legislation to end the war. It’s a different tactical outlook, but in no way any less committed to ending the war than those who advocated for the bill’s defeat. In the last few weeks, many of the leaders of the antiwar movements – the people doing the hard, unglamorous organizing work, not the people just blowing off contrairian steam – have been attacked by some on the left as supposedly “selling out” for supporting this supplemental. That kind of behavior is unacceptable and discredits those forwarding the argument. The truth is, those antiwar leaders trying to cobble together a legislative coalition could easily make the charge that the contrairians are selling out – selling out a viable way to end the war in order to grandstand for the cameras. But these antiwar leaders aren’t making that argument because at least one side of this debate on the left understands that this is a tactical debate over how to end the war, not a substance debate over whether to end the war.

   • 

     BooMan on March 24, 2007 at 9:35 am

     I agree with that.  But it is also a matter of having faith that the Dems will hold fast on this legislation.  

   • 

     Max on March 24, 2007 at 2:43 pm

     this is such propaganda. “Extremist” you bought the cool aid and drank every drop. Ending the war isn’t about “extremism”. The war is extreme.