Time for MoveOn.org to move on
Speaking as someone whose political views are decidedly left, I never thought I'd say this, but would Moveon.Org just put a plug in it already?
As an Internet phenomenon, MoveOn certainly demonstrated how to mobilize public opinion. Indeed, the organization, founded in 1998 by a married couple of nouveau-riche techies, Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, acquitted itself well during the Monica Lewinsky uproar.
Unlike a sadly servile mainstream media, which insisted upon playing to the lowest common denominator, a spunky MoveOn appeared seemingly out of nowhere to rally online opposition to the sham taking place in Washington.
But no matter what you thought about the nature of Bill Clinton's actions leading up to Lewinsky-gate, MoveOn's organizational activity represented a textbook example how civil society is supposed to function in a republic. This was interest group politics at its best--as American as apple pie and Federalist Paper No. 10.
MoveOn has played a big role in Congress' (still-to-be-decided) Net neutrality debate, while its pressure tactics also helped stoke opposition to Facebook's ill-considered
Even before then, my enthusiasm for MoveOn's shtick had begun to wane. I think it was the "
Nobody in this country should be above criticism--and that includes appointed military leaders. But the ad unfairly smeared Petraeus, a dedicated professional and one of the most capable U.S. officers ever to serve in Iraq. MoveOn's lame response was that the ad was "successful" in its intent. To wit: "Call the credibility of Petraeus' testimony into question. It garnered more coverage than any ad that MoveOn.org has run in years. Every time Republicans debated the ad, they helped raise questions around reliability of the General's report."
When I read that, I could only murmur sotto voce a disgusted, "you've got to be f---ing kidding me."
Now it's Obama-grams seemingly every day arriving in my inbox from the MoveOn crowd. Enough! I'll make up my own mind. Barack Obama's a fine candidate, but I think Hillary Clinton would make just as capable a 44th president.
Blades and Boyd made a bundle by convincing a sucker to pay millions for the flying toaster screen servers and other forgettable pop-culture bric-a-brac turned out by their company. But business savvy doesn't always translate into political acumen. (If they want to give me an argument, I'd only point to Dick Cheney's multimillion dollar payday from Halliburton as Exhibit A.)
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
I don't want to see the Democratic Party co-opted by the same kind of fanaticism that deluded and infiltrated the GOP with the religious right. That would be a travesty to the essence of political diversity that the Democratic Party has stood for, as long as I have been a member.
The fanatics are "hijacking" all discourse, and not just in the USA. It's like the whole world is becoming more polarized, with the people in the sensible middle under ever increasing pressure to take a side...
/P
I also felt it completely unnecessary for them to endorse a candidate at this point especially with the way they did it. They let their members vote which in theory seems just fine, but it was extremely easy for people to vote multiple times. I'm sure if I realized this other people did too.
If it was absolutely necessary for them to endorse someone, then the MoveOn.org staff should have researched which candidate most closely aligned with the MoveOn.org principles. Their choice should have been presented to their members for approval before going public with it.
It's a shame they are bungling things so badly. We need an organization like them.
members of Moveon.org voted on who they wanted to endorse and Obama won over 70% of that vote. You aren't speaking in the
majority of the Moveon.org users and I surprised to see such a
biased rant on News.com.
They're definitely the "fringe-left" now, which is not a comfortable place to be (even for a moonbat like me).
decides to let some idiot employee "blog" an opinion as fact:
What does this and its presentation have to do with the tech
industry and tech news and developments?
And remember, moveon.org was founded by the morons who
made the flying toasters in After Dark screensaver and get
money from George Soros, who's a Communist currency
investor.
I guess they figure the Demokooks at MoveOnOutOfTheUSA.org are damaging their chances.
Or more likely because MoveOnOutOfTheUSA.org is supporting Barack Hussein Obama and the Clinton shills have been given the order to take them out.
I'd point out that this publication posted articles supporting the re-unification (monopolization) of telecommunications, which was clearly a right-biased movement.
It's sound and fury, signifying nothing to me.
Their entire raison 'd etre is, IMHO, a large-scale rabble-rousing. It is in my opinion an exercise in herding 'sheeple' - giving people talking points and telling them what any right-minded progressive should think... or else.
Obama I like. Hell, McCain I like. Huckabee I also like (mostly because I got to see up-close how he cleaned out one hell of a corrupt state government). But... voicing the opinion that any politician who isn't Barack may be even remotely human (even --gasp-- Bush), would cause the moveon.org crowd to cry "Havoc", and unleash the dogs of rhetoric.
Bah - moveon.org only proves to me that masses of people can be easily manipulated and brainwashed.
/P
It would appear that you give no thought to your choices beyond a pretty face. Are you seriously thinking that there would be no difference between a 72-yo military veteran, a 52-yo minister and a 47-yo lawyer / college professor?
Given the nonsense you spout about operating systems, why does this not surprise me?
Picture a little kid who starts reciting all the dirty words he knows to shock the grownups. If they don't react, he escalates, until he's shrieking obscenities and they *have* to pay attention.
My politics are rightish, and we've got dirty little kids of our own, of course. Ann Coulter comes to mind, and the more virulent anti-McCainiacs. I think DLKs are more common on the left, but leftish people would doubtless say the opposite. But none of them are doing political discourse, or the country, any good at all.
I'm a free speech absolutist, but I'd sure like to see it exercised a great deal more responsibly -- perhaps with some attention to facts, and logic, and courage, and even honor.
I gotta say, Coulter is a bully that deserves to sit in a room with her mouth sewn shut, forced to listen to Gloria Steinem speak on Feminism for 8 hours.
MoveOn is no longer relevant - just about everyone has already acknowledged the political landscape has changed from the one they were set up to fight - ergo, the time you spend railing about them seems gratuitous.
Cooper you obviously think MoveOn was fine as long as they were hanging up the Clinton dirty laundry, but once they supported Obama, not Hillary and started focusing on Bush - it appears to be a problem for you.
As someone who receives several calls a week from the Republican political machine (even though I'm an independent) to collect money - I can't imagine that anyone would complain about MoveOn political promotional activity - unless it's because its not for their candidate.
Today the Republican call I received was to nominate me for some Republican Business Leader Merit Badge - obviously for a small party donation. I find selling "honor" as contemptuous as it gets. Unfortunately, the sale of honor seems to be main forte of the Republican Party in recent years. You say - "Even before then, my enthusiasm for MoveOn's shtick had begun to wane. I think it was the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" advertisement last September that was the last straw." Only a true died-in-the-wool conservative Hun couldn't see that Petraeus betrayed his military leadership oath, honors (and the American people) by allowing himself to be compromised and politicized by the Bush Administration. You failed to note he was even criticized for this by his military superiors - who did not sell out to Bush. Time and circumstances have now proven that the surge has failed to meet its primary goal of bringing political stability in Iraq - or any extended peace, or the seeds of democracy. Eventually it is only likely to have met its primary Bush goal - to give Bush some wiggle room to further fund his Cheney/Haliburton war and try to pass his fiascoes in the Middle East to his Democrat successor. Even the minimal security increases in Baghdad that were so heavily promoted by the Bush media machine - are now being lost - not to mention Afghanistan. Troops apparently won't be coming home as promised. Everyday now this Bush/Petraeus fiasco becomes a little more apparent as the fleeting security that was literally bought from Baghdad's dissident religious leaders - unwinds a little more with each bombing. The ignorance - or the attempted deceit of your Petraeus comment is just as obvious.
So, give up with this false 'I'm "decidedly left and I have been betrayed by MoveOn.org, Obama, the Clintons or anyone else not supporting this unnecessary liar's war, those who profit from the business of war, and this treasonous administration for which people that think like you voted for repeatedly.
for the record, i've volunteered and donated for the democratic party (went door to door in pouring rain to get out the vote), and i still think the petraeus ad reeks of the same swift-boat and religious right tactics we've apparently become accepting of in this country.
Peace
Moveon.org is a testament to free speech. If free human beings want to publicly express their ignorance, let them do so. They help us understand the mindset of those who think themselves so far superior to us that they will use the force of the federal government to make us be what they want us to be, subservient to their concept of 'civilized'.
Please note here that we are not all contented little reservation Indians, and they have not yet turned all Appalachians into happy little Anglos. We were here when they got here, and we'll be here when they're gone.
- America was built by People Griping
- by savagesteve13 February 15, 2008 7:30 AM PST
- People griping about how things are and wanting change.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (31 Comments)For those who are content with how things are, you might like to live in North Korea, where there is no dissent, no discussion, no disagreements with the leadership on how things should be.
MoveOn provides a valuable service to a public that regularly is told to "move on, nothing to see here"