User login

You DO NOT need to register to VIEW articles and comments. To add a comment you need to register. Registration is FREE!

Visit BuzzFlash on:

Facebook

and

MySpace

click here

See All The BuzzFlash Premiums

MoveOn.org Joins Democrats' Navel-Gazing on Public Option, Asking Members: Should We Advocate For What is Right?

Submitted by meg on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 10:49am.

Analysis

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

Thursday afternoon, I received an "official ballot" from MoveOn.org. Oh no! Have I been asleep for the past year? Is it almost Nov. 2, 2010?!

No, not to worry. Move On was simply asking me to vote on whether they should "refuse to support the reelection of any senator who helps block an up-or-down vote on a healthcare reform bill with a public option."

Apparently the decade-old political action committee is collecting non-transferable ballots from its members through Sunday night, after which they will presumably act on what the preponderance of votes tell them.

I've been tangentially critical of Move On in the past, but I've held off in print because I think they're pretty darn good at what they do every two years at the ballot box. That doesn't mean my office mates at BuzzFlash HQ don't hear my rants from time to time when Move On sends me, say, an e-mail that says this:

Hi, I'm the public option, and I need your help. Sen. Reid supports me, but we need his help to fight off a "trigger proposal" that could kill me through indefinite delay. Can you call him today?

Geez, when did Move On replace its policy team with the folks who brought you Schoolhouse Rock? And don't even get me started on the political-capital-wasting, childish "Betray Us" ad of 2007.

Yes, their daily e-mails and empty online petitions do get to me from time to time. Their ads almost always look and sound just like those election year ads that everyone automatically tunes out (you know the kind: ominous music, camera zooms in and out of black and white photos).

(One partial exception is their Hollywood recruitment effort. The latest in that campaign is an ad portraying the public option competing against insurance companies in a figurative track meet. The symbolism is great, but it unfortunately pales under the star power of the beautiful Heather Graham playing the part of the public option. Just because the public option is totally hot doesn't mean Chuck Grassley is going to vote for it.)

But the group has been a helpful ally in elections, especially in 2006 (don't let Rahm tell you he pulled that one off single-handedly). So hearing Move On talking about supporting or not supporting people at election time gives me hope that they haven't abandoned what they're actually good at.

The question to ask here is one of efficacy. At the end of September, Move On aired some radio ads targeting three Democratic Senators who voted against the public option in the Senate Finance Committee. But two out of three of those lawmakers are not up for reelection next year. Sens. Kent Conrad and Max Baucus have certainly been at the forefront of the conservative Democrats in the healthcare debate (perhaps only by virtue of being on the Finance Committee) but will Move On remember their votes in 2012 and 2014 respectively?

Back to the ballot in question, what does Move On's proposal to withhold support from senators who block healthcare reform with a public option actually mean? The only truly conservative Democratic senators up for reelection next year are Indiana's Evan Bayh, Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Colorado's Michael Bennet (who has said he supports a public option).

This list of Democratic senators who have attacked the public option compiled at Daily Kos lists seven, but only two of them are up for reelection in 2010. The piece notes that Bayh hadn't addressed the issue (he had called himself "agnostic" on the public option, leaving me wondering if he knows the difference between disinterested and uninterested). Schumer is the other senator up for reelection in 2010, and made the Kos list because he had told The New York Times that the public option "should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government."

There is some speculation that the 2010 elections are playing a part in the public option debate. There's been talk that the mere threat of a primary fight has kept Bennet, as well as perhaps Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Arlen Specter, on the public option bandwagon. So it may be that pressure from Move On, combined with the promise of a strong challenger at least in these three states, is making a significant difference in the healthcare debate.

But what these individual senators say about the public option means little compared to the power Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wields. If he brings a healthcare bill to the Senate floor that contains a public option, I sincerely doubt any Democrat will vote against it. Deep down they know that the blow the party will suffer if a healthcare bill -- any healthcare bill -- fails to pass this year is far larger than anything Move On could muster.

Ultimately, this is yet another sign of Move On's growing pains. Seemingly unsure as to whether they want to be an advocacy organization or a get-out-the-vote group, they appear to be turning to their members to ask, "What do we do now?"

I'm glad Move On is asking this question. But I'm not quite sure if they're asking the right person. Sure, I appreciate being consulted. But it's not like I'm a dues-paying member in the Move On Local 284 or anything. I've never even donated to them.

Perhaps this is just a mechanism to get around criticism levied by the Democratic leadership upon Move On for coming down too hard on Blue Dogs in Congress. This way the organization can blame their action on their members rather than their board.

In a way, this decision of Move On to turn to its members with such a question is the same wishy-washy latitude that gave us this crappy healthcare reform initiative in the first place. The congressional Democrats' navel-gazing and wondering "Hmmm, should we stand up for the plan that will cover the most people for the least overall cost?" was what gave Republican deathers and tenthers their cue to step into the power vacuum.

If you have to even ask that question, maybe you're in the wrong place.

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

"Crappy initiative" from too little citizen input, not too much

Submitted by evano on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 10:43pm.

So, let me get this straight, Meg: you're annoyed at MoveOn because:

They're consulting with their membership on how to respond to a particular issue.
Would it be better if they just spoke for their membership without consultation, like, say, the Chamber of Commerce?
You find it strange that they include you even though you're not really a member.
Do bands, for instance, require album purchase receipts or ticket stubs from fans before allowing them to join their mailing lists or request their songs from their local radio station?
You don't consider yourself a member because you never gave them money.
Is giving money equivalent to participation, like the way the health insurance industry "participates" in Senator Baucus' decisions or the finance industry in Senator Schumer's?

You object to the very existence of the question, yet it seems that you don't really understand what MoveOn is asking. Even though you bring up a good point about the limited number of Senators up for re-election in 2010, you seem to think they're asking about supporting Senators who vote against the public option. Wrong.

The question is about whether to support Democratic Senators who vote against a cloture motion on a Republican filibuster, thereby preventing the bill from even coming up for a vote. It takes 60 votes to defeat a filibuster, so even one defection by a Blue Dog or by a DINO like Lieberman means that the signature issue of the Democratic Party and the Democratic President, supported by a large majority of the American public, is never even voted on and disappears for another generation.

The question is really about: what is required for a politician to claim membership in the Democratic Party? What level of support must he or she give to party initiatives to be entitled to receivethe support of the party at election time? What are the consequences for a Democratic Senator who actively works to undermine the platform of the Democratic party?

You couldn't be more wrong when you say that MoveOn asking its members this question is an example of "wishy-washy latitude that gave us this crappy healthcare reform initiative."

No. What gave us this crappy initiative was so-called Democrats who only listen to their rich healthcare-industry donors, not their poor healthcare-sick constituents. Their self-serving actions were amplified by the knowledge that there will be no consequence from their party for their treacherous, traitorous actions. Not only would there be no consequences, but by pandering to these scumbags, the Democratic leadership gave them more power than their largely unpopulated states could ever deserve.

It's so typical of our party that when things get difficult, we immediately turn on our own supporters. MoveOn is certainly not perfect, but they -- and we -- don't need to add our own voices to the ridiculous criticism they get from Fox and other parts of the GOP. MoveOn is not a villain just like ACORN is not a villain. We shouldn't be doing the Republicans' dirty work by turning against our supporters.

With the ever-shrinking impact of the voice of the citizenry in the governance of our nation, it's really stupid for Meg and BuzzFlash to be criticizing MoveOn for asking our opinion.

MoveOn

Submitted by john lippmann on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 8:55pm.

Thanks for finally telling the truth about MoveOn. I am really tired of MoveOn doing very little in the way of effective activism and getting all the credit for all liberal victories. When the left becomes uncritically accepting of any group we give up our rability to improve and get better. Moveon's syncophantic attachment to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other democratic stars has stopped them from really representing the majority of liberals who feel that our government has been hijacked by corporate interests and their minions in both major parties.

keep on being real BuzzFlash

MoveOn just sponsored a petition

Submitted by daphne chyprious on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 6:16pm.

encouraging Obama and all Democrats and progressives to boycott FOX, which I happily signed. Trouble is I haven't heard a word of it from the media - tree falling in the forest? - nor did it go far enough. My petition would have urged him to continue throughout his term(s) whereas theirs pushed for merely the end of the year. So it was a good idea with no staying power.

for starters It's one word Meg: Moveon not Move on

Submitted by tacomawhite on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 4:59pm.

i'm glad i have an organization that works for the majority of americans and does not act as a one way street when it comes to decision making. you think this is a sign of weakness that in a democracy someone (or organization) ask what their members/followers think. moveon (not "move on"; dummy) is supported BY and works FOR those who share their political/social philosphy. how unusual!! i just want to know one thing... how is it that meg white is on this blog buzzflash??

MOve on or Moveon

Submitted by john lippmann on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 9:01pm.

Is this really what stands for political criticism these days, critiquing spelling? Tacomawhite I just wonder if you have ever tried to contact MoveOn 's or Move On's national organization. You cannot easily speak to a real person, Yet we are all supposed to answer their one way communication whenever they come up with a campaign idea. This sure sounds like a one way street. i was one of the earliest supporters of Moveon or is it Move On yet after a couple of years got really tired of their love affair with power and refusal to tackle the hard issues like abuse of presidential constitutional powers in a way that might make waves with the democratic leadership during the Bush administration.

Censure and Move On

Submitted by Jonathan Inskeep on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 4:19pm.

That was what they called themselves at the beginning, when a lot of us signed up and began participating. Remember, their initial "funding" came from the "Flying Toasters" screen saver guy. I gave up on them when they refused to state formally that Bush seized office illegally and that he should be removed from office.

They've done some good stuff, but comparably, BuzzFlash clearly puts them to shame.

Jon Inskeep

Crofton, MD

Move on

Submitted by Chrisdutch on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 4:16pm.

I'm supportive of Move on but Ms. White asks a great question. How the hell did Obama and the Dems let an issue they have widespread support on (even from Republicans) get away from them? Nuts, totally nuts.

Ms. White, you have no shame. YOU talking about Navel Gazing???

Submitted by Start Loving on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 12:59pm.

BussFlash is the Throne of academic, gutless, spineless, cowardly navel gazing,
and you its Queen.

YOU SHOULD BE DEEPLY, DEEPLY, DEEPLY ASHAMED.

But obviously, you have no shame
and neither do your do nothing,
risk nothing, STAND for nothing
bunch of henny penny 1929
"nice," "literate," "German citizen" BuzzFlash READERS.

MOVEON.ORG IN TRUTH, PUTS BUZZFLASH.COM TO SHAME.

You are more Dangerous, and more damaging than Fox.

Ms. White, you have no shame. And in True intelligence,
you are dumber than a post.

Start Loving??

Submitted by pupmunchkin on Sat, 10/24/2009 - 12:56pm.

Gee, what an odd screen name for such a hateful person.

Perhaps, you are even dumber than your "post."

I wonder

Submitted by daphne chyprious on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 6:17pm.

what scathing messages you leave at MoveOn.

No litmus test

Submitted by deros on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 12:57pm.

I support Move On but in no way do I have a litmus test on who I will or will not support. The public option is only one issue and is not the beginning or the end of the world.

Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts