Moveon doesn't 'use' their list of 3.2 million. That list represents people with ideas about politics. Maybe they won't pay for activists and organizers and lawyers in every state but will pay for TV ads. And maybe those people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama and don't want to see any challenges against the Democratic leadership.

It's not as simple as suggesting that Moveon is a pot of money that can be vectored in any direction. It isn't, and it can't.

Posted at July 29, 2008 7:39 PM in response to MoveOn is No Movement, It's a Powerful Democratic Marketing and Fundraising Tool

Mostly everyone was respectful and praised this guy.  And several of them even talked about their religious faith and religious ideas.

Your attack on 'the secular left' here is both insulting in your tone and wrong in your accusations.  One, you have no fucking idea how religious these commenters are, and it is presumptuous to the nth degree to write as if you do.  Two, you are simply wrong.  Most people here were respectful.

If this person wants to 'build bridges' to this community, he will do it.  A few random commenters expressing skepticism about Christianity in the midst of many expressing interest in his ideas shouldn't dissuade him, or else he's got bigger problems and isn't serious about fighting injustice.  I assume he is serious about fighting injustice, though apparently your writing here implies that you assume otherwise.

Posted at December 4, 2007 6:12 PM in response to Christianity as a Global Threat

But think about it, Maggie Mahar, YOU ARE THE NETROOTS IDEA PEOPLE.

No, no, she's above all that.

Posted at May 3, 2007 6:19 AM in response to It’s “All About Winning"

The real telling point is that Maggie's book didn't sell and neither do her ideas.  She doesn't have the discipline or fortitude to deal with the democratic process and persuasion, and so writes about problems she's interested in with the idea that she can just hand the political work off to people she has contempt for.  That's worked out real well, Maggie.  Good job fixing the health care system.

Posted at May 3, 2007 5:57 AM in response to It’s “All About Winning"

Why should Kristof get praise for a column that doesn't even mention AIPAC, allows the Republicans off scot-free, and doesn't distinguish between Democrats that are beholden to AIPAC and those that are not. AIPAC is known as 'the lobby that must not be named' for a reason.

Kristof isn't a politician to be lobbied, he's a pundit who is basically obnoxiously postured against liberals for no particular reason except his own weird boomer angst. It's all well and good to manipulate him with praise and/or criticism, but let's not pretend this column is some brave statement of anything but the most obvious and non-controversial critique of the Israel debate combined with a propensity to bash Democrats.

Posted at March 21, 2007 9:51 AM in response to Sign Petition to Thank Nick Kristof for Great Column on Israel

; maybe us hated "centrists" include hundreds of elected officials who represent many millions more "constituents" who will never read blogs and who would hate the idea of themselves as part of any "progressive movement."

Where are the centrist institutions with millions of members/readers?  They don't exist, Ed, because you don't have a genuinely popular constituency.  Where are the pro-war Democrats?  They don't exist anymore.

Posted at January 17, 2007 6:00 PM in response to Quick Thoughts

I've spent some time learning about the New Left, and it was a reaction against not just liberalism but the liberalism that allied itself quite happily with McCarthyites so as to destroy the Wallace faction of the party.

Posted at January 17, 2007 1:14 AM in response to When They Tell You It's Not About Generations...

Good post, except I don't want anymore charismatic leaders.  I wish someone could make the case for boring ones  -- the kind of people we would choose to be godparents or trustees of our estates.

Both charismatic figures and responsible grinds have their very important roles to play.  The charismatic figures though have an attention and revenue stream, and the grinds largely don't.  This is very bad because in the long-term it creates the incentive for irresponsible flashy behavior.

Posted at January 16, 2007 11:09 AM in response to Movements Move

I'd only add that Matt clearly is much more concerned with the policies that get implemented as a result of elections that throw the republicans out than is, say, Markos. He wants to advance a progressive agenda, not just get power.

My pov in all this is that there is no conflict between these ways of looking at these things, at this time. 

That's very insightful.  Markos and I differ in our strategic orientation, but that's ok.  The New Right had electoral specialists as well as their ideologues (or moral preachers), and both have their function.  There is in fact tension between the different approaches, but that's good tension, the kind that produces a better outcome if the arguments are done in good faith.

Posted at January 16, 2007 11:07 AM in response to Movements Move

Excellent points.  If we can't solve these weaknesses, it's kind of over.

Posted at January 15, 2007 9:20 PM in response to Netroots--Solidarity Forever?