Salon: MoveOn moves in with Pelosi

[babylonsister]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/23/move_on/

MoveOn moves in with Pelosi

The netroots group's support proved crucial to passage of the Democrats' Iraq spending plan. But antiwar activists say MoveOn has been co-opted by its access to power.

By Farhad Manjoo

When Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, looks at the Iraq spending bill that Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are rallying to pass today, what he sees is a way to end the war. The bill commits $124 billion to fund operations in Iraq, but it calls for removal of American combat troops by the summer of 2008. The plan is not perfect, Pariser concedes. It does not require complete withdrawal. Still, this week, MoveOn signed on to Pelosi's supplemental funding bill, citing a poll of its members showing overwhelming support of the idea.

MoveOn's longtime allies in the antiwar movement, however, look at the bill -- and MoveOn's support for it -- and see something very different. Groups who call for immediate withdrawal argue that MoveOn's position is a betrayal of their cause, and that Pelosi's bill merely continues the war while allowing Democrats to say they've done something to oppose it. Cindy Sheehan, the "peace mom" who favors immediate withdrawal, describes MoveOn as supporting "the slow-bleed strategy of the Democratic leadership." Gail Murphy, of the group CodePink, says, "MoveOn has taken a compromised position -- in fact I think they were involved behind the scenes in creating a compromised position." Other peace activists call MoveOn's e-mail poll of its membership a sham. If MoveOn's millions of members knew the full details of the bill, they would surely oppose it.

more...

[JackORoses]

1. It's not that hard to understand the strategy

No immediate withdrawal of funding will ever pass the House, much less the Senate. If this was attempted, not only would it fail, but the Democrats would also be accused of not supporting the troops and attacked relentlessly in public.

The bill that was passed will never be written into law because Bush has vowed to veto it.

However, with this bill the Democrats demonstrate to the public an ability to compromise. They have approved funding for the troops while at the same time placing conditions on the war.

We can't bring the troops home, only the President can. We can only cut off the funding.
But if we do this, we look very bad.
So instead, we approved the funding in such a way that Bush will be the one who cuts it off.

Bush will look very bad in front of those who support him the most.
We already know he's a dirtbag. By vetoing troop support, his base might finally get the hint.

[Labors of Hercules]

2. A very succinct clue in for others who just don't get it.

right on the money, Jack! :toast:

[Mojorabbit]

4. Baloney

He is going to veto this bill. May as well have made a statement with some spine. This is playing politics with the troops lives. I am sure the soon to be widows and parents of dead children as well as the Iraqi population won't see the compromise as something to be applauded. We just ok's funding the war for another year and took out the Iran statement. Please.

[Mz Pip]

3. I look at this like a war

This war is just beginning and it's better to start by picking a battle that you can win rather than one you will most surely lose.

Now the Democrats can at least accuse Bush of refusing to fund the troops, which in vetoing this bill, he is.

Mz Pip
:dem: