“Tradeoffs For Move On”

Matt Stoller writes:

To party committee leaders like Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel, the money coming through Moveon and Actblue is nice but no longer necessary.  There’s no reason to make any trade-offs to progressives to get it, unlike the period from 2002-2006 when business lobbyists had no reason to give to Democrats. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) What exactly are Move On and Act Blue pushing for? They have been stunningly quiet on pressing Democrats on Iraq. Oh let me guess, this is about the stupid Move On censure, cuz that is what matters. The Dem Capitulation on Iraq? Not so much.  What a joke.

[UPDATE] The irony drips. Stoller again:

For a few different reasons, this made me think of the Iron Law Of Institutions (emphasis in original):

The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution “fail” while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

No mirrrors handy?

57 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Armando on October 1, 2007 at 4:33 pm
      Author

    and progressives on Iraq are not limited to Pelosi, Emanuel, Hoyer et al.

  1. MoveOn and ActBlue actually represent an alternative progressive view.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    • documel on October 1, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Armando, you do hold a grudge–Shakespeare would wonder if you protest too much.  Moveon’s ad was accurate, Dems and some bloggers, attacked the speaker, not the facts.  You were swift boated–you are Kerrying.
      As long as bloggers attack others, she gets a free ride–as does Reid. 
    The blame for funding is Pelosi’s–she controls the House floor–and she’s supposed to twist arms. She is the enemy, not any left wing lobbying group, just as Bush is the enemy, not Kristol and friends.

  2. (not here, i did follow the graciously supplied link ;)!!)
    because i wonder who considers the end to the war a ‘tradeoff’.  i wonder a lot of things.  but that’s tremedously callous. 

  3. … that has been emerging for me these past several months of watching the Dems act like fools — all they care about is 2008.  Period.  That is all.  They feel they can coast until then and if the base gets annoyed, oh well, yawn.

    Defunding, impeachment, enforcement of oversight, any real opposition (for that’s what all of this boils down to – OPPOSITION) has been discarded in favor of the 2008 elections.

    They feel it’s okay to go another year with no real opposition.  I find that notion literally intolerable.

    I despise them for that attitude.

    • Pluto on October 1, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Folks, you know this is true:

    If the Republicans ALSO wanted to defund the war — you know what happens next:

    A foiled attack (or perhaps a real one) on the elementary schools of America by al qaeda operatives in America. (Haven’t you asked yourself why they vote for a war they, too, hate? The GOP has been briefed.)

    This concept, in fact, is being test marketed right now in Texas.

    The funding is a done deal.

    Let’s put our money and energy into electing Democrats and forget the lost causes. (gawd, I sounded so much like Markos just now, I vomited a little into my mouth.)

Comments have been disabled.