Movin’ On
I'm swamped with work so gonna keep it real short and rely mostly on the work of others for this post (Remember that all journalism is "derivative").
Looks like it's Adios Alberto. No tears will be shed. But Gonzales' departure solves no problem. Bush will replace him with a clone.
More important is that Congress take some real action. Not just uncovering the entire backstory behind the firing of the eight federal prosecutors. But also reversing the constitutuonal damage wrought by Bush's personal attorney.
---------------------
While we're on the subject of things and people that are movin' on, how about a nice little chuckle for the fearless rebels over at MoveOn -- now going into the tank for the Democratic leadership's weak tea proposal on defunding funding the war in Iraq.
Some folks are pretty hot under the collar about what they consider to be MoveOn's betrayal of purer anti-war positions. Sheldon Rampton claims that the online group's method of "polling" its own members is fairly fraudulent.
I find the whole show more amusing than irritating. MoveOn, from its onset as a Clinton shill back in '99, has always been more fiercely partisan pro-Democrat than it has been any sort of real challenge to the party establishment.
As I said a few weeks ago, this period is going to be one of accelerated enlightenment. As the war continues and as Democrats continue to fuddle around helpless to mount a clear alternative, a whole lot of folks are going to see their illusions of the last five years go up in smoke. MoveOn's current capitulation is precisely on of those accelerants.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:04 am
A pullout of Fall 2008 should insure that US casualties hit the 4000 mark and go way beyond that. We will see whether the Democratic “base” finds that acceptable; more importantly, we shall see whether the families of the dead soldiers find it acceptable.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:04 am
US Attorneys are political appointees. This is a non-story.
The widespread invasion of privacy by the FBI, on the other hand, IS a real story and appears to justify firing lots of people.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:00 am
“This is a non-story.”
Wow, it sure seems to have legs for a non-story. I guess it’s that danged liberal media again.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Move-On definitely DID serve a purpose in the first months following the Iraq war, in which it convinced liberals and “average Americans” that they could oppose the Iraq war without involving themselves in what they percieved – thanks to certain scribes – a too radical an antiwar movement. They certainly helped mainstream antiwar sentiment.
And now they’re flushing it down the drain. The beginning and the end of what could have been a great social movement came in 2004. It started with mass public dissatisfactin with the war, the public’s embrace of the (highly flawed but important agit prop) Fahrenheit 911, etc. – and then it was channeled into “ABB” anyone but bush. Move On were prime guilty parties here.
What the hell do they do? They are simply Democrats, who don’t even try to push the party. I have my own view – but at leas the Progressive Caucus, and the organization Progressive Democrats of America is trying to push the party. Move On is capitulating, and as Rampton points out, is duping its members. Let us say as well hat its members are not uniformlyt antiwar. Then antiwar members of MoveOn should publicly split with them.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:21 am
As much as I wish it were otherwise – and have written about this at length – it is obvious that there is no consensus in the Democratic Party, and the country in general as Michael Turner’s analysis of the polling data indicates, as to the best way to get out without harming the troops. I think a timetable with a six month to one year plan makes the most sense but, alas, the votes are not there.
I’m agnostic on whether the House plan is the best we can come up with. I think we can do better. But given the fact that Bush will veto this and the GOP congressional delegation will sustain him let’s understand that this is going to be a long slog. It is easy for us to call for a cut off of funds now. But wishing won’t make it so; only the hard work of persuading the public that it would be the best course of action.
I am more concerned about dropping language from the Supplemental that prohibits action against Iran without prior approval of Congress. Pelosi promises a separate vote on that but that can and will be vetoed. Placed in the Appropriations bill it becomes hard to say “NO” if you’re Bush and need the money. It also becomes hard to filibuster for the same reason. That is far more important than wrangling over the manner of leaving Iraq since giving this administration “Options” is the same as telling them to do it.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:23 am
BTW you are shocked that MoveOn backs Democrats? And who the hell is Sheldon Rampton?
March 20th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Rampton – “Politically, the Lee amendment cannot pass; fewer than 100 members of Congress are expected to vote for it. However, the same thing is true of weaker legislation that MoveOn is currently supporting…”
Then – “The Democrats, however, do have a choice, and the choice that they are making is to offer symbolic statements of opposition, while in practice allowing the war to continue, and funding it.”
It sounds like – even based on Rampton’s self-contradictory rhetoric – the choice is (1) of putting fairly tepid anti-war legislation on the table that seperates them from Bush symbolically while uniting Congressional Dems (who are all over the place on the withdrawal issue), will likely pass the House and won’t pass the Senate – clearly dividing themselves from the GOP, which won’t break with Bush OR (2) make a stronger statement that won’t even pass the House.
It’s worth noting that my congressman, the “heroic lone voice” Barbara Lee, has in fact lent her “heroic lone voice” in committee to the BushLove Republicans attempting to block even Pelosi’s legislation. (Thanks Barbara for jerking your knee once again. Just bring us the pork.)
So if I wanted to reduce the complexity of this issue to soundbites that demonize, we’ve got Lee siding with the most pro-war elements in Congress because Pelosi won’t adopt her bill as the one to send to the House. Nice.
Let’s also be clear that this watered down bill is not what “the leadership” would actually like to see. That’s clear from Pelosi, Murtha and Obey’s stands on the war. It’s what they think they can get through the House, given a divided party. If the legislation passes and it doesn’t get through the Senate because of the GOP+Joe, that’s a pretty clear line drawn. It may seem murky to the anti-war stalwarts but the inside-baseball details won’t matter much to the murkily anti-war public. It’s called politics and don’t kid yourself that the divisions that are obvious among the Dems don’t fairly accurately represent broad public opinion on the war – i.e. against it but not sure how to geto out – while the unity expressed by the GOPers runs counter – i.e. “whatever Bush says”.
As for MoveOn, it HAS been sending a stronger message, and they probably should have stuck to it. But the notion that one of the major illusions of the last five years that will add to America’s deep political disappointment and disaffection is that MoveOn wasn’t as militant as the masses believed it to be is just wack. I’d add to that list our profound concern that Kos has become a Kommissar and Atrios doesn’t write enough original copy.
Marc – when you quit touting John McCain as America’s savior on the issue of immigration, I’ll start to take your rejection of calculated, although likely still doomed, attempts at political compromise on crucial issues seriously. Meanwhile, you’re playing out a grudge that dates back nearly a decade – when you had crawled out on a limb with the worst of the worst – and are somehow fanatasizing that because MoveOn isn’t pushing their own views harder on the Dems at this legislation juncture, the world will see that you were right about them all along. Pretty amazing stuff…
Also, for the record I don’t believe there’s any “good” way to end this war. A quick withdrawal is as likely to have as much downside – unless your only bottom line is American casualties, which is not a “progressive” position by a long shot – as an extended withdrawal. Hell will probably break loose even worse than it has when American troops withdraw. I don’t even support total withdrawal but some combination of redpolyment and any military assistance that can strenthen any non-sectarian forces that actually exist. It is, I believe, a certainty that the American presence is a moderating influence on certain aspects of the violence. From recent polls I’ve seen, Iraqis seem to believe this also. The U.S. is also exacerbating violence by it’s presence. The question is, which factor is stronger and is there anything we can do that’s constructive in either event. I’ll add that I think this administration is incapable of doing the right thing, both for political reasons and reasons innate to this poor excuse for a human being who heads the damned thing up. I may be wrong in thinking that there still might be some mushy “middle” path – i.e. redeployment of some forces to Kurdistan and continuing efforts to train and assist a non-sectarian army to counterbalance the militias – to withdrawal or staying Bush’s course.
But the fact is, we’re stuck with whatever Bush wants to do for at least another year – the congressional momentum may change when the surge fails and a handful of Republicans and Blue Dog Dems have finally had more than enough. I can quarantee I hate this war as much as anybody, thought it was completely nuts from day one and I’m still torn as to what our responsiblities are and whether anything strategic might still be possible, through regional diplomacy and multilateral assistance, to assist the less-sectarian Iraqis in the midst of an increasingly hellish situation.
If these issues don’t at least give people pause when considering the course of a withdrawal, I have trouble taking their thinking on this seriously. People outside the circles of power should push an anti-war agenda without assuming they have a responsibility to come up with a magic formula, but even at the level of Congress I refuse to demonize anyone for not simply signing on to a simple withdrawal with no qualms or consideration of how we still might have some strategic impact to avert the worst. (The “worst” not being the moronic, faux-hysterical crap peddled about al Qaeda following us here, but all-out civil war among Sunni and Shia – which bad as it is, hasn’t yet happened in full.)
March 20th, 2007 at 9:46 am
“It is, I believe, a certainty that the American presence is a moderating influence on certain aspects of the violence.”
I want to clarify that as meaning, simply, at this juncture of what looks to be primarily sectarian insurgency/militia violence, and an al Qaeda strategy that seems bent on exacerbating that. “The American presence” also, obviously, opened Pandora’s box…
March 20th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Say all you want….its straight out of Brezhnev’s presidio. Do not, I repeat, do not, develop a critical, independent line.
Sheldon Rampton is one of the heads of the centre for media and democracy and PR watch. He and John Stauber have written a series of excellent books on junk/corporate science, adn Bush propaganda. He was a regular on Al Franken’s radio show, from what I hear.
There was no consensus in the Democratic party for many prog. issues over time, civil rights, new deal,etc. – but the party moved ahead. Reg and RLC provide weasel words that apologize for continued mayhem in Iraq. I won’t argue about this, since to them, the party (Party) is more important than principle.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:52 am
That Reg admires bourgeois centrists like Obama, etc. but disparaged Barbara Lee for attempting to prevent her party from capitulating to continued mayhem speaks volumes.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:53 am
And the line about violence, even if true, is immoral and wrong. I’m sure the Nazis kept a lid on the Polish partisans, through their own surge…
March 20th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Hubris Hubris Hubris…. http://www.slate.com/id/2162157/nav/tap2/
March 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Hmmm, interesting how you can find a comparison with a Nazi surge in Poland, jcummings. Nice try. Barbara Lee as an ideal? Precious.
Marc, I thought your opening remarks about MoveOn.org mostly on target. Not sure what to make of the Rampton thingy on MoveOn’s polling, The problem of actually governoring as a majority party (supporter of such) now being realized.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I really await Comrade cummings’ brilliant plan to end the war that, I’m sure, will find veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
“And the line about violence, even if true, is immoral and wrong. I’m sure the Nazis kept a lid on the Polish partisans, through their own surge…”
This is a totally bullshit analogy. Really stupid and indicative of massive ignorance of what is actually happening in Iraq.
An example of why I basically hold the cummngs Left in total contempt and pray to God they never gain any power, ever, anywhere. I don’t want a latterday Trotsky to put a bullet in my social-democratic brain. Although I know cummings would claim that he had some principled disagreements with the Politburo.
Babara Lee, incidentally, has a completely rotten political history and I have very little respect for her ilk. Among other things, she crawled out of the “Committees of Correspondence” dregs of the CP. Working as a hack staffer for Dellums boosted her to her present berth. When her local cronies actually show any evidence that they care more about the kids they leave to rot in totally failed Oakland schools they’ve helped manage than their bullshit PC rallies and rancid job trust, I might change my mind. I’ll take the promise of Obama over this crap we’ve been treated to by Lee’s local crowd any day.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Comrade Cummings doesn’t need to respond to that, because its not the responsibility of a social movement to craft legislation, only to light fires under the collective political ass. Its one hting to vote for Democrats – bad enough, though sometimes neccessary. It is another to defend the prevailing political reality…when as has been shown, the war could be brought to a close in a variety of manners.
I don’t believe the Americans in Iraq are as bas as the Nazis in Poland. I do however, believe that the excuse that an invading force can keep the lid on violence is not an excuse for the invading force to stay. On Barbara Lee, if any of you had even the minimum courage that she has , then you’d be plannign direct actions, etc. Instead wait for the (Godot) Democrats.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I probably know a hell of a lot more about whats going on in Iraq than most Americans.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Incidentally, Barack and Barbara had a little lovefest at his rally on Saturday. She was totally in thrall of his “bourgeous centrism” and he suggested that she was one of best Beltway denizens ever. I won’t hold it against him. It’s all in the game…
March 20th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I agree with Barbara on Barrack as an establishment candidate who is the least worst. I am not an extreme admirer or either – though Lee’s early antiwar and icivl libertarian strands make me think she is quite courageous.
The thing is, as I said, it is one thing to vote for Democrats – I’d do it, depending on where I am. Its another to resign yourself that they won’t go far enough. You keep bitching at people like me who want to form political forces outside the Democratic party. That is sure to take place, whatever your beliefs are, if the Dems don’t move left on the Iraq issue. I can promise you that.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Barbara Lee gets 87% of the vote in a locked-down left-liberal district. She doesn’t have a clue what political courage is because she’s never had to summon any actual leadership to win an election or run on principle in a tight race. She had her seat handed to her because she played the game by the rules of the local machine.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Excuse me! It wasn’t the responsibility of a “Social Movement” called the Civil Rights Community to advocate and propose legislation that would address a hundred years of inequality?
Maybe you get off on demos jc but like the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band said in that song (yeah, I’m that old!):
“Gravestones cheer the living . . . They’re
no use to the Dead.”
Some of us actually want to do something. We’ll discuss the cultural contradictions of Capitalism another day!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Gee Reg, tell us what you really think of the “People’s Republic of Berkeley”!
Bet you listen to KPFA, right?
March 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am
RLC –
Tell that to Fannie Lou Hamer. The establishment elements of the movement helped craft legislation, but they wouldn’t have been palatable to the establishment in DC if they didn’t have more radical elements backing them up.
As it stands, many people have written about everything from the creative use of fillibusters to cutting off funding to a variety of other mechanisms – some that don’t require a majority – to end the war.
Its not about Demos….its about occupying politicians offices, jamming their phone lines, making life miserable for Democrats, and rendering them unelectable unless they do the right thing.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:07 am
And to scoff at me about “doing something” – I’ve actually been involved in both radical and mainstream antiwar activity since I was 15 during the first gulf war. I helped pressure my government not to send troops to Iraq.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I mean in the current war. I am not a member of the Liberal party in Canada, but there was a co-ordinated effort within that party to tell Chretien that his days would be numbered if he sent troops to Iraq. He did not.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I’m just sick of having the same faces spout leftish rhetoric – most of them refugees from various sects who’ve found that the same monomaniacal energy, focus and party discipline that served them so well on the left margins can easily be translated into “bourgeous” political careerism – and never be able to show any tangible results, new ideas, urgency or attempts at creativity that might actually be even modestly transformative- as actual conditions here continue to deterioriate. The schools – with Lee-allied “progressives” on the school board for years – kept getting worse and there seems to be nothing remotely resembling accountability or a sense of crisis. (Brown’s input was also terribly disappointing and self-serving IMHO. Finally the state took over, with some minor improvement.)
March 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
That was a response to rlc’s “Berkeley” snark…
March 20th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I don’t know aobut Oakland schools, I’ll take your word on it…and heartily agree that many radicals enter mainstream politics as careerists, whilst mouthing the same rhetoric. That said, I was referring specifically to Ms. Lee’s stance on foreign policy.
For the record, I was never a sectarian. I’m a member of a mass socialist party though. Pity you don’t have one in your country….and yes, I blame the Left as much as I do Democrats….but what pisses me off is how Democrats settle for too little…an issue that han’t been adressed.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“I won’t hold it against him. It’s all in the game…”
Sorry reg, but that right there is proof that you’re failing to properly employ the opportunism litmus test. Remember, opportunism in campaigning = opportunism in government. As you yourself admit, Obama fails, Barbara Lee fails, Gore fails, Nader fails, Edwards fails, etc. Right now we have just Dennis “no-strings” Kucinich who passes. I’m afraid you’re just going to have to tighten up your standards for how politics works.
March 20th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
All this is terribly interesting but, meanwhile, in the real world, Fred Fielding, Bush’s lawyer, has told the Senate investigators that Rove and Miers will be available for interviews. Just nothing under oath and no transcripts. Poor Fred has a memory lapse. Guess he forgot that didn’t work during Watergate. Of course he might figure that his client has a tame Judiciary that won’t force the issue. I’m betting otherwise since the precedents are still there. Course you don’t want to bet the house on that.
March 20th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Nicely said, Reg, but there is no need to go into much more detail than Cummings: as to today’s blog from Cooper: Part one, take it up with your buddy Lindsey Graham. Part two, take it up with your buddy Lindsey Graham.
March 20th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Opportunism is endemic to politicians and the gratingly ambtitious in all professions. C’est la vie. What’s necessary in a president isn’t somebody who always behaves well, but some one who behaves well when it comes to the big stuff. Sure we sweat the small stuff because when it comes to being President of the United States, the small stuff isn’t so small, but that’s not what I’m voting for. I can live with blowjobs, and Sister Souljah, and maybe even Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But they gotta get the big stuff right and Billy boy blew NAFTA, Healthcare, Welfare Reform, Defense of Marriage Act, and on and on. As far as the small stuff prevents a leader from governing effectively then it’s problematic, but other than that, it’s just not that big of a deal to me as a voter. When I look at the field for 2008 I want be able to tell who will be opportunistic on silly shit and who will play games on the big stuff. Seperating the wheat from the chaff in that regard is the big challange.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Richard – check this out…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703200012
March 20th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Richard – off-topic but I can’t help myself – Limbaugh is now singing a song about the “Barack, The Magic Negro” and has decided to “own” that term for Obama. Used it 27 times on his show today, citing Ehrenstein’s LA Times piece. Good Job, David !!!
Via Media Matters.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Ooops, thought that link didn’t go through.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Well I wondered how long it would take someone to put that that the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon” and, considering the song’s provenance it’s appropriate that the Oxycontin Kid decides he “owns” it.
Frankly Obama should be honored. Getting slimed by fatso shows he’s making real inroads.
(But aside from Woody who gives a damn what the addict says?)
March 20th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I’m surprised it took this long for someone to think of “Puff the Magic Dragon” but I guess it makes sense that the Oxycontin Kid would use that tune.
Obama is getting to people. and Who gives a damn anymore about fatso?
March 20th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Actually, Limbaugh’s rant – as I read the whole thing – is a weird mix of a critique of the LATimes and “the left” as racist and driving home the “Magic Negro” tag on Obama. It ends up, of course, being about Rush and how powerful and important he is.
March 20th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
On Topic – and for the record – here is what MoveOn is telling members (their latest letter excerpted):
In just the last few days, MoveOn members have sent letters, organized petition deliveries, supported ads, and made calls pushing for an end to this war. Yesterday, we received this note of thanks from Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, addressed to MoveOn members:
“Thanks for everything you’ve done to help build the public support for Congress acting to end the war in Iraq. As someone who voted against the war, and as a founder of the Out of Iraq caucus, I would have preferred to redeploy our troops long ago. I am pleased, however, that for the first time, the debate is no longer about “if” but rather “when” our presence in Iraq will end. This is an important first step on the road home for our troops. Now, the choice is clear: we can either allow the President to continue his open-ended war or we can demand accountability by putting an end to this misguided war. The stakes are enormously high. Thanks for all you do.”
And we got this note to MoveOn members from Congressman John Murtha, who has been one of the strongest voices against the war:
“Thank you for helping make this bill the strongest it could be—your voices helped us get a plan that will end the war. All of us want to bring our brave men and women home from Iraq as soon as possible. While the bill may not go as far as some of us would prefer, it is a necessary step toward a safe and responsible end to the war. Bush is threatening to veto and the Republicans unanimously voted ‘NO’ in full committee. Let’s join together and take the necessary step forward.”
But most important, here is what some of you said about why you voted to support the plan yesterday:
It will be a huge step forward to pass legislation opposed to the war in Iraq. Those who want more still need to back this important step. The Bush administration is counting on the wide spectrum of opinion on the war among Democrats to prevent passage of such legislation. We need to prove that Democrats can unite on core principles.—Jeanetta M., Connecticut
We have got to be very careful about dividing and self destructing. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.—Sheila C., New Mexico
I voted for the plan, somewhat reluctantly. I’d like to see a resolution for strengthening diplomatic engagement along with diminishing military efforts.—Frank B., California
Getting out now would be even better, but we need a large consensus vote from all opponents, not a symbolic minority vote. Bush is going to veto the resolution anyway, but we will have marked an important milestone if this resolution passes. It will be a precedent, and that’s highly important.—Stephen F., Indiana
March 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Those comments – (et tu, M. Murtha?) reveal the Democrats and Move On for the unprincipled “pragmatist” hacks that they are.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Mavis, how bout “taxing the rich to get the country out of hock”, “a period of comparitive (now seemingly remarkable) peace in the Middle East” ,”Diplomacy before War” “Vetoing of horrible bills (later passed by Bush) hammered through by Credit Card Companys” “moderate (and excellent) SC Justices” as big stuff?
“Defence of Marrige Act” I would put in that very pile of cosmentic nonsense, a bone thrown to gulible fence sitters. You might have put”appointing a truely awful and disasterous director of the F.B.I.” Clinton screwed up healthcare reform, but as much out of political overreaching as anything. I’m something of an agnostic on Welfare Reform. Are there still poor people in this country? The alternative press doesn’t seem to cover the issue. SOME of his pardons, by the way, were great.
March 20th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Move On, Move on! You have done your deed now fade way, hypocrites. You just lost a fundraiser here. Go get ****ed!
March 20th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
[...] Movin’ On [...]