MoveOn And the Kabuki Congress
The US Senate voted 72 to 25 to condemn the Move-On ad which called General Petraeus "General Betray Us". It's hard to know where to start with this, because it's an episode that says so much about the US and the US Congress, so I'm just going to work through it point by point.
Form Over Substance: US elite discourse has become that of courtiers. What matters is not what you say, but how you say it. The fact of the matter is that Petraeus's testimony to Congress was based on statistics that are, effectively, lies. Lying to Congress is a crime. It is also a betrayal of Petraeus's duty as a general in the United States military. By lying to Congress Petraeus effectively betrayed the US. He also betrayed his men on the ground. Note carefully that in this paragraph I'm not saying "he shaded the truth"; I'm not speculating on his motives "oh he really believes the crap he slings therefore it's not a lie" and I'm not using softening language like "failed to tell the truth", which is much weaker that the word LIE. He lied.
Straight talking isn't allowed inside the Washington bubble.
Fake Outrage: Let's move on. Was there a groundswell demanding this condemnation? Nope. Not in the real world. The majority of Americans think that the surge didn't work; they want the US to pull out either immediately or within a year; and they didn't trust Petraeus not to cook his testimony. Imagine that.
You Can't Criticize Generals: This is another issue. The sense of the motion is that criticizing a general - or criticizing the military, is simply unacceptable. This is very unhealthy in a democratic society, in which no one should be above criticism, let alone the military. This is especially the case as the Republican administration has done its best over the duration of the Bush presidency to politicize the military into an arm of the party:
More After the Jump
[A recently retired flag officer friend of mine, who describes himself as a "once solid, and now wavering Republican"] went on to tell me that one of the things that bugged him the most about the Pentagon in recent years was the fairly overt process of politicization. "The White House was always involved in picking the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a handful of other positions, of course, but the process further down the line, especially two-stars and lower, was really peer-review. There is still a peer-review, but now it's politicos who make the decisions, and their suspicion of where people stand in terms of party politics seems to weigh very heavily. This just ain't right."
American tradition, reinforced by statutes, has mandated that party politics be kept out of the military. In theory military officers should refrain from overt displays of political involvement; specifically, wearing a uniform to a political function is prohibited--with just a few narrowly delineated exceptions (the armed forces routinely provide color guards for political events, for instance). However, with the arrival of the Bush Administration, a double standard has emerged: military personnel are welcomed to participate, in uniform, at Republican functions; at Democratic functions, this is prohibited. One of the best demonstrations of this was Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, who wore his uniform while giving speeches at a series of political rallies linked to the Republican party. An inspector general's report recommended he be disciplined over this. Instead, he was promoted. Soldiers caught wearing a uniform as a function associated with the other party have a distinctly different experience, as Cpl. Adam Kokesh discovered.
A democracy in which the military is beyond reproach and in which the military brass favors one party over the other is in a lot of danger. I will add further that there are few institutions in the US that need vigorous criticism more than the US military, which contrary to American jingoism is not all that good, especially considering it is spending 50% of the world's budget. Yes, Bush is a boob. But US forces have just not done a very good job in-theater otherwise. Since I'm never going to run for office I can say this. The fact that people who might run for office, or are in office, can't say it is immensely worrisome.
Know Your Place Peons: Another strain that's very interesting is that various Senators essentially said the same thing as Move-On, minus the word betrayal. And they came pretty close to saying that. Matt Stoller over at Open Left tackled this with General Wesley Clark:
Matt Stoller: Chuck Hagel called his performance "a dirty trick on the American people... It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible." Admiral Fallon was reported saying that he thinks Petreaus is 'an ass-kissing little chickenshit" for the way he sucks up to politicians.' There are a lot of rumors that David Petraeus wants to run for President. My question is, um, is their criticism a mistake as well?
Wes Clark: Well, I think for Chuck Hagel, who's a sitting Senator who wants to criticize a General, that's fine. That's his right to do so. As far as Admiral Fallon was concerned, if he's got a personal quarrel with Petraeus, you know, that's between the two of them. Petraeus works for him, obviously he feels cut out and to some extent I've known situations like that, but, um, as for Moveon.org, it was a mistake.
Let me summarize that for you - it's ok for a Senator to criticize a general. It's okay for another general to criticize a general. But it's not ok for ordinary citizens to criticize a general. Who do you think you are anyway? Uppity bloody peasants. (Hagel, of course, voted for the resolution.)
Hurting a Proxy: There are few more necessary things in politics than proxies. A proxy, in political terms, is someone who can say things you can't say and get them out there. Mike Stark in the last campaign in Virginia probably got Senator Webb elected by asking George Allen questions about his past that Webb couldn't ask. Other times proxies say inconvenient truths politicians can't say (like Petraeus is lying). How you use them is simple, you say "well, I wouldn't have used a word like betrayal Bobblehead, but it is an interesting question. Why are the numbers Petraeus is using so much better than the numbers every other independent study has come up with?"
Or, in more generic terms. "Well I certainly wouldn't have brought up the rumors that my opponent beats his wife and I think that such slurs have no place in our democracy, but now that the issue is out there perhaps my opponent should address them."
You argue on the substance, not on the style. You turn and (as Jane Hamsher has pointed out) pivot into an attack.
Now the problem here is that MoveOn has been a very effective proxy for a long time, running ads that say things the Democrats can't. Every time they try and act as a proxy in the future what Republicans will say is "MoveOn are a bunch of extremist who were condemned by a bipartisan motion in the Senate." Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant to damage a proxy like that. Can you imagine Republicans ever doing that to, say, the NRA. When the Swift Boaters were saying far worse things (and proven lies) about Kerry, did they get together with the Democrats and condemn it? Of course not. They know that the Swift Boat Vets were on their side, were their proxy, and were saying things they wanted out there. Oh sure, they might sotto voce condemn it. But not with any real force.
Tainting the Money. As Glenn W. Smith wrote to me in an e-mail:
Money. The Cornyn resolution is about the money as much as it's about distracting from the Iraq debacle or dressing in military drag.
They came for labor. They came for trial lawyers. Now they come for the netroots. Taint the money. And the Senate Dems and their ignorant consultants are too blind and too stupid to understand that.
Individual Senators: Obama ducked the vote. He was there for the one before, then ran out. Frankly that's exactly what I expect from Obama. He doesn't like making hard choices or fighting. Clinton voted no. Given that she mostly hasn't pandered to the netroots I don't think this is a pander - I think she's remembering what was done to her husband and her and understands that you never give an inch. Biden ducked it too - not sure what the story is on that one though I certainly wouldn't have thought he'd vote nay, myself. Schumer voted no - good for him, and I would have expected him to vote the other way. But Schumer's a tough one who doesn't cow easy, whatever you may think of him otherwise, and he may see the move for what it is. Dodd voted no, good for him. The netroots have been there for him and he's there for us.
Kabuki Congress: The bottom line is this. About half of Democrats (list at the bottom) just don't like the netroots or uppity citizens. They really don't like us. When they just go through the motions we get angry. We ask people to call them (who often don't say nice things on the phone). They don't really want to end the war; they don't really want to restore Habeas Corpus. Oh sure, they'll go through the motions, but they won't force the Republicans to actually filibuster. They won't work with outside groups to really put pressure on vulnerable Republicans, nor will they do anything significant to ratchet up the pressure.
Why? Because they figure they're going to win in 2008 anyway, and they can do it without the netroots. And if the price is letting another couple hundred thosuand Iraqis die; if the price is another 1,000 or so American deaths - well, that's an acceptable price to them. It's certainly not worth having to get unpleasant with the Republican; having to fight hard. So a certain section of the Democratic party has come to hate the netroots for pushing them to fight. They're going to get everything they really want without fighting, they figure - so why do more than go through the motions? Real filibusters, with the cots and so on, and maybe weeks of it, are really unpleasant. Maybe not as unpleasant as having your legs blown off by an IED, but then, these are important people.
For a while now a lot of activist bloggers have been holding onto the last shreds of the hope ignited in November of last year - that electing a Democratic Congress make a real difference. This act has dispelled most of that. Practically every blogger I know is furious. This puts them, I might add, back in the camp with their readers, most of whom, judging from comments and from the polls, have been disgusted every since the Iraqi authorization bill went through. The honeymoon is over, and the Democrats who did this will reap what they sowed. Both they, and the netroots will be worse for it, but there is no way out - the real betrayal, in the end, was of the base, by these Democrats. And as Digby would say, for us to go crawling back now would be to act to them like they act towards the Republicans - as a battered wife crawling back to her husband despite the abuse.
The job now will be to support those few Dems who deserve it, to work on primaries and recruiting candidates and get ready for 2008. Working with the leadership is off the table - I personally will no longer be asking anyone to call on anything unless I believe the leadership will fight for the bill, rather than just make a token vote and let it go down easily. No fight - no support. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
Appendix: Votes Against or Not Voting
Against:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The current love affair between the public and the military has been conflated to include general officers. It should not. The warriors who sacrifice and die for us should be honored every day. It's a GD crying shame how we treat the warriors when they come back.
The VA is a mess. The Army screws soldiers left and right. They look for any excuse to declare a "pre-existing condition" so they don't have to pay benefits. Yeah, Congress and the Administration really supports the troops.
The general officers are willing to give their lives for their country, just not their careers. Wesley Clark is usually a good guy but this is one weakness he has where the Hudson High network sticks together and they don't like to be questioned. Their brains calcify after the first star.
It kind of makes me sick to see Patraeus sit there with medals up to his stars. He's going to need a merit badge sash before long. (Then will he start selling cookies too? Hey, he's been selling the war.) What is it with these guys giving themselves all these medals? Is it a male insecurity thing? The picture of Ike on D-Day with 3 ribbons was so much more classy.
Thirty years ago, when I was an officer most of the officers didn't even vote, as far as I knew. I've felt kind of guilty about that but at the time we felt we were the "pointy end of the spear." If the policy makers sent us, we went. To me, not voting was a confirmation that there was a wall between us. We each had our separate duties and we didn't reach around the wall. I agree that politization of the military is a very, very bad thing.
I agree with you. Forty years ago it was the same thing-- most of us didn't vote. It seemed to be an understood thing that the military was supposed to be apolitical. Why, we wouldn't think of being caught dead in our uniforms at a public assembly unless it was 4th of July or Veterans Day.
I was a Obama supporter; his action gives me a serious second thought. I think, from now on my support goes for Edwards. The MoveOn is doing a public service.
When others voiced their enthusiasm for Obama, I kept saying that I wanted to wait and see. Well, I've seen enough. This man is a political coward and deserves nothing. Since I cannot bring myself to support Hillary because she would be so divisive to our nation (and because she is a political hack), I am becoming resolved to support John Edwards. He's not perfect, but he seems a whole lot better than the alternatives.
I may be extreme, but the way I see it the current state of American politics is for my soul. Some Democrats will call me stupid and some naive - I just don't care.
This is just to say that I will now contribute to candidates solely - including Republicans, Independents, Green, Socialist, etc., etc - for what they say and do. They need to follow through on the issues which interest me specifically or they get none of my money, not one thin dime.
The Democrats as a party are as dead to me as the Republicans. They are liars and scumbags. If you are liberal and continue to vote for the 20 who sold us out, you are part of the problem - this politics of lies, money and power. These people are filth and none of them should be privileged enough to receive our votes. I'd rather lose election after election with my integrity intact rather than continue on as some electoral Uncle Tom. That way when the real political battles come down, at least we know who is on our side.
I, for one, am tired of getting stabbed in the back.
This is so appalling I can't see straight. As usual the Repubs vote in lockstep, and half the Democrats can't decide whether they should bow to the Repubs or not. Have they ever had a resolution condemning Ann Coulter? Limbaugh? Savage, and on and on...?
How about Craig?
The resolution is now on record so that, as an act of congress, MoveOn.Org is officially condemned as anti-american. From here on out anything MoveOn.Org does or says can be effectively tuned out. Just say "MoveOn.Org" and we can ignore them. This is the way the Republicans indulge in their spin the messenger to destroy the message magic. They did this with CBS and Dan Rather (What? Forgotten already?), John Kerry (the flip-flopper), Gore (the serial liar), Michael Moore (just say his name and we know we don't need to hear anymore, because of spin the messenger trashing), Ted Kennedy, and ever and ever. Now MoveOn.org is officially --- Trashed.
The Democrats are appalling. They deserve to let the Republicans keep control in 2008! I will NOT vote for anyone from either party! Those parties need to MOVE ON.
"Just say "MoveOn.Org" and we can ignore them."
I doubt that this vote will cause ordinary Americans, other than right wingers to ignore MoveOn.
We have all been betrayed. Where is our right of free speech? We are having students tasered in our universities? Is this our legacy?
Thank you Mr. Welsh:
You have said all that I feel but am too tongue tied to actually say. Thank you.
Ian,
Just wanted to thank you for the thoughtful, poignant blog. You hit every point. There's a reason Congress has an 11% approval rate. This is one big political CIRCUS while the oil heist continues and our troops sacrifice their lives.
What a sham senate. Why the &%#! don't these cowards vote to condemn the BS Rush Limbaugh farts out every day?! Or any of the microphone nazis? They actually took time and taxpayer money to "condemn" a newspaper ad? That came from the left?! What the hell is going on?
My senator, Salazar, what a disappointing wad he's turned out to be.
Are the dems trying to placate someone or something? What chumps; we are through the looking glass.
They are all the same..DEMS & REPS
They are ALL traitors to the American people and have destroyed the very foundation of government by, for and of the People.
Vote Republican for more of the same.
Vote Democratic for less of the same.
And what do you have?
A Totalitarian Nation with hand me down leadership with a volunteer military and highly paid corporate (military style) security forces.
Oh, don't forget about retirement funds invested in the stock market. War is a good thing for making money.
What about the Democrats who voted against this bill? Like Hillary.
Webb of Virginia, a former Repuglican, voted just as I expected him to. But it still makes me want to puke. He has a bill that Repugs have been working against, a bill that would allow servicemen and women to have a humane amount of time between deployments, and he is one of a very few in the Senate or Congress who actually has a child in Iraq. But he voted for this repulsive thing. Shame, Jim, shame. I held my nose when I voted for you, because it was you or George Allen. Not much difference, I guess, after all. Another Lieberman "Democrat". Mr Webb, you make me sick.
I, too, was really shocked to see Webb's name on that list. I stood in a parking lot this evening for an hour talking about this very situation with a friend of mine who is a recovering Republican and Mormon. What needs to be done? How do we get rid of the bad Dems along with the Repugs?
Mike I have the same problem,as a former GOP voter I feel that a vote for the Dems is wasted.The GOP is transparent,they continue to support an administration that is a threat to world peace.By shrub logic we should be invaded to remove a leader who has invaded a country illegally and killed a lot of civilians.If I vote for the Dems I don't think they'll do anything different,so what do I do???
Webb's name was also on the list of those who voted for FISA...so were the names of the other new senators. The names of Harry Reid and all of the Democratic presidential candidates were on the list of those who voted against both Again, I ask, WHY? Are we supposed to believe it is all coincidental?
What is going on with the leadership, anyhow? And why are the new senators sticking together and voting more conservatively than the leadership. There has to be a reason.
Make incumbency a disqualifying (for getting your vote) defect. A difficult pill to swallow as it will get the few good ones along with the corporate slaves but it is the only way left for the people to assert their will.
Good work,Congress-I started out believing MoveOn has the freedom to run whatever ad that want and I have the freedom to disagree with them. Now, I am just FURIOUS and firmly in the MoveOn camp-we pay these bozos big bucks to pass this crap while our military and Iraqi civilians die. Fiddle while Rome burns, you gutless, useless Dems, but you will pay for your cowardice and stupidity.
This vote is essentially telling us - the American public - to sit down and shut up. I for one will not sit down and shut up as long as my brothers and sisters are dying for a LIE in Iraq. What are we going to do when Bush bombs Iran? Just go along and hope things will turn out all right? They've gone just dandy in Iraq. We are squandering our great-grandchildren's future for Baby Bush's ego. Great job, Dems.
Amen, MufsMom. I would like to see every democrat who opposed this, every journalists with an inklking of balls tell us at every chance they get for the next six months how many American soldiers and Iraqis died during the time the senate was discussing and voting on this abhorrent nonsense. For that matter, I'd like the number of families claiming bankrupcy because they can't pay medical bills added to that.
What is the threat that hangs over those Dems who voted to condemn the MoveOn ad? (One of my Senators from Virginia did)-- Skeletons in their closets? Threats to their cats? No funds from Transnational corporations?
I mean, if Swiftboaters can smear, for political purposes, why can't MoveOn? What gives?
Oh, I get it. MoveOn is not goosestepping.
So let me get this straight...
Congress didn't trust the Bush administration to give an objective view of Iraq. So, Congress specifically assigns Petraeus to observe conditions in Iraq for a period of time and then report back to them. They spent weeks and weeks talking about how September would be key, suggesting that they intended to base their decision on his testimony.
Then as time passes, the surge begins to bear fruit. Dems are left scrambling to try to do damage control by spinning the successes and moving the goalposts.
As September approaches, Dems realize that Petraeus will be able to present a factual testimony that would convince most voters that the surge is having a positive impact. So, now instead of putting him on a pedestal and saying that his testimony is key, they begin a pre-emptive media campaign to discredit him. This, of course, is capped by the MoveOn stunt.
During the testimony, Dems pass on the opportunity to ask Petraeus specific questions about his experience in Iraq and what he sees on the ground, and instead resort to long-winded filibuster-esque diatribes. They tell him that no amount of charts or statistics or figures will sway them because their minds are already made up.
And now afterward the blogosphere has picked up the tune and is doing their best to convince people that Petraeus lied.
Is that about right?
as time passes, the surge begins to bear fruit...is that about right?
no. no other accounting saw a decrease in sectarian violence, and in fact, most saw an increase in sectarian violence in the last few months.
any so-called success in ankbar province can be credited to money changing hands from the pentagon thru saudi arabia into the tribal hands on the ground. and even then, the main chieftain that started the "we're with the us" groundswell was blown up a few days after shaking bush's hand.
plus taken with the fact that the pentagon used a bizarre categorizing system to count violent events (car bombs don't count, being shot in the face don't count), there was no actual evidence that the surge is working.
so, no. that's not about right. it's about wrong.
again.
Not exactly. Here is what really happened: Bush chose the most likely general (like himself and the rest of the Bushies) to be most able to ignore reality and to push Bushrovian bullshit onto the American public. Petraeus (who was called by his own superior in the military "an ass-kissing chickenshit" was the obvious choice to become the Bushie waterboy).
In what other field of endeavor does a CEO ask an underling to judge the quality of the underling's own performance? Especially in a matter as important as war or peace? Bush set up the situation in which the military has just become a pipsqueak arm of the executive branch. Apparently, he expected that everybody would be lazy and or stupid enough to believe his setup.
Anyone of 6 or 7 objective military people could have been chosen to give an honest evaluation, but they weren't...Bush went with the ass-kissing chickenshit, and counted on the American people to (again) be so stupid that they wouldn't know the difference between a judge and a tool.
How many of the benchmarks has the Iraqi government met? How many of them are close to being met? The surge was supposed to give the Iraqi government the cover to make some serious political progress. That is what we were promised way back when. That hasn't happened. Instead we get a general with presidential ambitions, covering for an administration who is, yet again, misleading us. So Moveon.org was RIGHT. Petraeus betrayed us.
Hey, Mormondude, right on!!
I think it is the leadership that is convincing them to vote with Republicans so the leadership and the presidential candidates can continue to pretend to be more liberal and the Republicans can still win by getting their crapola passed.
The big question is why? Is it the DLC and its corporate sponsors?
We must get to the bottom of this before Reid is given the chance to do even more damage.
Print out the list of those who voted for this crap (it is virtually the same as the list of Democrats who voted for FISA). Somebody or something is getting to the new people. Keep this list attached to your refrigerator with a magnet so you will rmember the names the next time you are asked to contribute your money to Democrats.
It is indeed, at least in important part, the political thinking of the DLC influenced greatly by their corporate financiers. Bill Clinton (and therefore presumably Hillary) are in the grips of the DLC thinking. This is why a Hillary administration (were it attainable) would be much too close to what we have now. HRC, despite her very great intelligence and capability would not be a good President for what ails America. This is totally a hypothetical inasmuch as, in my opinion, her candidacy would bring out many many Red-State Hillary haters who would otherwise likely stay home.She likely can't win.
Edwards represents a real change in that he is most representative of the social and economic issues of the Democratic base.
Keep it up Dems, I am starting to get so cynical as to consider voting for 3rd party candidates in the incredible cynical belief that the only thing that will wake up this rapidly dying republic is to allow more Republicans more time to do more damage. You are cowards--why condemn an AD in a PAPER but NOT: 4 million + Iraqi displaced persons & refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, a country destroyed, $1 Trillion in cost to the US (think what that could have bought!), 4000 + dead American soldiers with many more wounded, etc. This war is a war crime, and you aren't doing enough to stop it.
standupnow:
I totally agree. I don't even see the POINT in voting anymore. It means NOTHING, and anyone who thinks differently is DELUSIONAL. Democracy is dead. The Constitution is non-existent, and human life has NO value.
The Dems are so smug. I will NOT support these traitors. We have become a Banana Republic and have no voice in government.
Does anybody SERIOUSLY think it is a bleeping coincidence that the new senators (the ones we worked so hard to elect last fall and who have most time before having to run for reelection) voted with the Republicans? Especially while Reid and the presidential candidates voted with "us"?
How likely is it that the newbies would go against the party leadership and do the opposite of what they promised to do in their election campaigns? (They did the same damn thing when they voted to give Bush even more fascist power than even Bush dreamed of having).
What is the deal with these turncoats and with the senate leadership? Are these wimps afraid to vote on their own convictions? Are they allowing themselves to be dictated to by the DLC to make sure that the Republicans, YES, THE REPUBLICANS win these critical votes?
I sincerely hope I am not the only one asking these questions. I sure don't hear anybody in the MSM asking them. (Arianna--where are you when it comes to manipulations like these?)
I didn't believe Nader when he said the parties are exactly the same, and I still don't. The Democrats are even worse, because they make promises they have no intention of keeping.
No, we have become a Totalitarian State with no political opposition. As long as we have a volunteer military it will stay that way.
standupnow, very well said. If Obama or Clinton becomes the Dem nominee, I'm voting Green. If Edwards, Dodd, or Kucinich becomes the nominee, I'll vote Dem but it will be for the last time if things don't change in this country.
My cynical side wants the Republicans to win big in 08, because the damage already inflicted on this country is so profound that perhaps the American electorate will only wake up after the bus actually careens off the cliff. It will be too late by then (though probably inevitable), so why be the ones in charge when it all hits the fan?
The Dems don't really deserve to win, if they cave in to these inane tactics that the Republics toss out as red meat to their base.
After supporting some of these people in 2006 I am so discouraged, what did my money buy? Who do they think are behind them? Frank Rich wrote a column," A Nation of Nitwits" some time ago in the NYT, these timeserving fools in the Senate fit right in. Nelson (fl), Tester, Dorgan, Salazar, many more. Move on is right, this general was not asked about the missing weapons, the troops & police he supposedly trained, now deemed too corrupt to
operate on their own, the number of troops necessary to control the insurgency, he evaded all of this. Casey & Abizaid are fired, this "genius" is brought in, promoted to a 4 star and with a constant drumbeat of "wait for Dave Petraeus assessment " we waste another year. If these spineless senators don't stand up the repubs will keep on with sliming them, making fools of them and reclaim Congress in the next cycle. They just don't seem to get it1 Jim from Mass
Democrats who sided with Republicans to condemn Move-On Ad
Arkansas: Lincoln & Pryor
California Feinstein
Colorado Salazar
Delaware Carper
Florida Nelson
Indiana Bayh
Louisiana Landrieu
Maryland Cardin & Mikulski
Minnesota Klobuchar
Missouri McCaskill
Montana Baucus & Tester
Nebraska Nelson
North Dakota Conrad & Dorgan
Pennsylvania Casey
South Dakota Johnson
Vermont Leahy
Virginia Webb
Wisconsin Kohl
Thanks for posting this list, Desiderata. This is the list that should have accompanied the blog post, because these are the people who need to be educated about the damage they have just inflicted.
I took the opportunity to contribute to MoveOn for the first time, in the aftermath of this absurd assault. I hope others do the same.
Feinstein, an incredibly popular Senator from the very liberal state of California, has buckled to some incredibly stupid resolutions. I, for one, have no idea why...
Thanks for posting the list.
What I'd like to know is: how many of these Dems have benefitted from moveon/netroots money/support in the past??
In the 2006 midterms, people like Webb received huge amounts of support from the netroots in his very tight race against George "Macaca" Allen. Same goes for Casey in PA and others.
We were there for them, but they weren't there for us. So, that's how it's going to be, eh?
"The job now will be to support those few Dems who deserve it"
This is too negative and defeatist. More than a few Dems voted against this bill and they deserve our enthusiastic, active support. This includes Hillary Clinton, but not, alas, Obama.
Why not post a list of the Democrats who had the guts to vote no?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
