A number of the GOPers on this board, who know the cure for all that ails the Democratic Party, have frequently pointed to MoveOn.org specifically as being too ‘far out’ for the Dems to associate with and hope to win. For instance, Sam Stone:
Or Mr. Moto, in response to a comment that Dems need to stop letting conservatives get away with claiming the Dems are in favor of Islamic terrorism:
So, those of you who think MoveOn is unacceptable company: let’s see what you’ve got. What has MoveOn said and done that’s so offensive (cites please), and why do you believe it’s unaceptably offensive?
They are trying to silence Sinclair broadcasting because it’s not liberal enough. :rolleyes:
They claim (without any links or sources) that Tom Delay is likely to be indicted in a fundraising scandal that the evil Republicans secretly voted to stop. :rolleyes:
They have a petition that demands an investigation into the 2004 election. :rolleyes:
They claim the Iraqi war is far graver than Vietnam. :rolleyes:
They claim that “Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, Fox News Channel turns Republican talking points into news headlines.” :rolleyes:
They have a list of “50 ways to love your country”. I haven’t read the book and don’t see any excerpts from it on the site. So, due principally to the fact that I don’t have any information about it, this is the first item that isn’t outright childish and stupid on their site.
Lastly we have a list of recent political victories. This is normal for a political group, and again is on the short list of “non stupid” stuff on the site.
To anyone who can look at Moveon.org and keep a straight face: Newsflash! You are on the extreme loony fringe of the far left.
Here, check out their campaign contributions yourself. Not a single donation in support of a single Republican - plenty of money spent attempting to unseat them, though. Any PAC that can find no supportable candidate, except a Democrat, can’t be, by definition, centrist.
And that is your answer to the OP’s question as to why it’s “unacceptably offensive”, huh?
debaser, not a single one of your complaints is free of your own tighty spin. The OP was seriously interested in objective responses, not confirmation that anything you disagree with is “loony fringe”.
I’ve never said that moveon is “unacceptable offensive”. I don’t think anyone has actually said this, except for you and the OP. Since you made this term up, why do you expect us to back it up?
The simple fact is that Moveon is a far left radical group. They turn off most Americans when they compare Bush to Hitler in an ad or post nonsense on the main page of their site.
I said MoveOn’s position regarding the Afghanistan conflict wasn’t one that contributed to our national security.
MoveOn has been attempting lately to sound more hawkish on the Afghanistan conflict, yet to my knowlege they haven’t renounced their previous actions and petitions that were unabashedly against war there.
I posted proof of this in the other thread, and I’d like your opinion, RTFirefly, whether the position articulated in these archived links is one you would support.
No, they denounced Sinclair’s use of the public airwaves to air a schlockumentary smearing John Kerry. That same Sinclair that found Ted Koppel reading names of dead soldiers to be unacceptable.
Isn’t that common knowledge? They passed, and later revoked, a change in the rules to keep indicted congressmen in leadership roles just for Delay’s benefit.
Only because it was heavily tainted and rigged.
duh!
We know that Fox tells its “journalists” to spin the news to make Bush look good. (a lot of spinning indeed). This is also common knowledge.
Nothing moveon.org stands for is in any way unfair. The right wing likes to point to specks in moveon’s eyes while ignoring the planks in the Swifties’ eyes.
Your idea of “loony fringe of the far left” must be somehwere to the right of Genghis Khan. If you think those ideas are “loony” or “fringe” there’s some people out there that are gonna make your testicles pull right back up into your groin, Debaser.
We’re still a free country. People and organizations are allowed to support Democrats. However there are a few rules.
1 - People are allowed to support dead Democrats. - You can say nice things about FDR, Truman, JFK, etc. You can even claim their legacy for the Republicans and what higher tribute is there?
2 - People are allowed to support Democrats as long as they do so in an ineffective manner - Don’t talk about things like health care or education or offer support to sensible moderate candidates. This might encourage people to actually elect Democratic candidates. People who insist on supporting Democrats should be encouraged to do so by loudly advocating the most extreme left wing theories and spokesmen.
3 - People are allowed to support Democrats as long as those Democrats support the Republicans - For example, people would be allowed to vote on a Presidential candidate like Zell Miller as long as he agreed to concede the election to his Republican opponent.
4 - People are allowed to support Democrats but should not imply that Democrats are ever, in any manner and on any issue, superior to Republicans - After all, Republicans won the election which proves everything they say or do is right. Saying otherwise would be foolish although not yet illegal.
MoveOn simply broke some of these rules and is paying the price.
What Evil Captor said. In addition, I note that the wackiest idea on the page, the plan to start an information campaign against Sinclair, is nothing compared to the campaign to shut down any “indecent” expression via the mailed fist of the FCC. One is the expression of a politicial point of view, the other is pro-government censorship.
Now, ironically enough, the same group of people who write in to try to get the government to curtail free speech are the same ones jumping up and down when the government tries to curtail free speech in the other direction, or, as your post shows, when opposing groups simply offer a different opinion.
Informing advertisers of bias is hardly an attempt to silence Sinclair. It equates to a bake sale IMO.
You said that the charge was that the Republicans secretly voted to stop the indictment. If you need a source for that, you’re news-challenged. A retraction is in order.
They’re not asking for a recount or decertification, they’re asking for an investigation to see if anyone voters were disenfranchised. How is that left-wing-pinko-commie-tree hugging?
They quote a general and invite you to watch a documentary. How is that socialist-America hating-save the whales-left wingism?
They’re pitching another documentary. Is there a sane person on this earth that thinks FNC doesn’t have an adgenda? How is this free-abortions-at-the-high-school-free-clinicism? Moveon.org’s homepage.
That’s not true, I don’t think. Any PAC that can find no supportable candidate, except a Democrat, is certainly partisan, but that doesn’t say anything about it’s ideological belief. I could set up a PAC that gave all its money to people like Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, Mike Weaver of Kentucky, etc. That would be a Democratic PAC, but also a conservative one. Alternately, I could form a PAC and give money to any Democratic candidate regardless of ideology.
Neither of which MoveOn PAC does, of course, but I’m just saying it’s possible.
Could you provide direct quotes to support your summaries? The only one I see is regarding the Fox News Channel and it seems to be spin based on the quoted segment, but nothing out of the ordinary for political action groups or pundit talking heads. For instance, on the front page of Rush Limbaugh’s website is a “Truth Detector” article which reads “Out of Power Democrat Senators Side with Terrorist Murderers Against Gonzales, Bush” which is almost certainly a gross misrepresentation of both the actions and motivations of the Senators in question.
You said that, and you also said what I just said you said.
My apologies for having not been back there since your postings.
Anyway, the question isn’t “do I support their position” but “if someone took that position, would it require that I treat them as anathema?” I’ll answer the first question anyway:
I can’t possibly support their belief that “a non-military response is the best strategy for a permanent end to terror.” Perhaps if by some miracle the Taliban government had been willing to cooperate with us, round up bin Laden and his henchmen, and turn them over to us, then that might have sufficed. But even then, it was clear that that was a nonstarter. And when someone hits you like we were hit on 9/11, then you’ve got to hit back, or nobody takes you seriously anymore.
OTOH, I have no problem with their petition. If we could have rounded up bin Laden & Co. peacefully and through international institutions, then that would have been preferable to war. In fact, it would have eliminated any justification for war; exactly who would we have fought then?
I concur with the petition’s second paragraph as well. But I see the Taliban’s protection of al-Qaeda after 9/11 as “compelling evidence of its cooperation and complicity with those individuals who actually committed the crimes in question.”
But I don’t see MoveOn’s stance on Afghanistan as reason to regard them as beyond the pale, even though I see it as very wrong. The GOP consorts with those who believe abortionists should be executed (Sen. Tom Coburn), those who believe 9/11 happened because of lefty sexual degeneracy (Jerry Falwell), those who think whipping children between 18 months and 6 years old with a switch is a perfectly reasonable and normal way to keep them in line (James Dobson), those who believe the Japanese-American internment camps during WWII are justified (Michelle Malkin, Daniel Pipes), and those who work to eliminate prohibitions on the use of torture (Alberto Gonzales).
I disagree with MoveOn on this, but I can work with them. Besides, they’re right as rain about a whole bunch of other stuff.
But i do not think our military action there is part of any effective strategy to permanantly end terrorism. It was a successful effort to reduce a threat from a particular terrorist organisation. But this effort will only have a bubble-in-the-wallpaper effect unless other steps are taken to end terrorism, which i believe must be non-military.
I remain unconvinced that the Taliban could have turned over ObL even had they wanted to. Seems to me, we were nearly desperate to hit somebody, right now, as hard as we can. And there they were. So we did. Take that, somebody!
And what have we gained? We have a perfectly decent man as mayor of Kabul. Period. That’s it. In addition, we have saddled ourselves with several perfectly odious regimes as allies. When you lie down with dogs, etc.
I should also like to comment that I find the notion that we had to go to war for fear that “no one would take us seriously anymore” an example of precisely the kind of thinking we need to learn to avoid. That’s not a good reason to start killing people.
That said, it’s definitely a closer call. All in all, I opposed the Afghanistan adventure as being stupid and immoral. It was just a warm up to the full scale debacle to follow. Looking back, from the perspective gained by a current fiasco, hardly seems worth mentioning.