MoveOn Threatens Congressional Democrats

[carpro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/w...int&adxnnlx=1178471333-8ZQdcOahEBj2a9IBcl/lIQ

May 6, 2007
With New Clout, Antiwar Groups Push Democrats
By MICHAEL LUO

EXCERPT

On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.

“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

 

[Ps104_33]

The bottom line is the Democrats dont really want to pull the troops out. They want Bush to do it. If we are still in Iraq when and if the Democrats win the white house they will be in a real predicament. They will have to renege on their promise to end the war because anyone knows we cant just pull the troops because we will be right back in. Even John Kerry admitted that we will have to keep some troops in Iraq even after a pullout. That shows why he will never be president. Pull out all the troops except for a few sitting ducks.

 

[hillclimber1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/w...int&adxnnlx=1178471333-8ZQdcOahEBj2a9IBcl/lIQ

May 6, 2007
With New Clout, Antiwar Groups Push Democrats
By MICHAEL LUO

EXCERPT

On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.

“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

This just tickles me. The thought that a radical fringe group can speak so blatantly to the Dems, and cause some change or direction, just makes me smile.

 

[KenH]

One of the reasons that the Democrats won control of the Congress was to bring Bush's folly in Iraq to a conclusion. I can't blame those that did the legwork to bring their November victory to fruition for wanting the Democrats to do what they were elected to accomplish.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Moveon.org will abandon the Democrats on the same day that Christians abandon the Republicans.

I'd like to see what those anti-war groups would do if Hillary won the Dem nomination and Paul won the Repub nomination. Dr. Paul would be the anti-war candidate then. Would they back him? Yeah, right.

 

[hillclimber1]

One of the reasons that the Democrats won control of the Congress was to bring Bush's folly in Iraq to a conclusion. I can't blame those that did the legwork to bring their November victory to fruition for wanting the Democrats to do what they were elected to accomplish.

You can't blame those that conspired to bring down a sitting President with his nation at war?

 

[StefanM]

You can't blame those that conspired to bring down a sitting President with his nation at war?

I'm no fan of MoveOn, but...

Is being at war an insurance policy for a president?

If so, why not just stay at war forever! It worked in 1984!

 

[KenH]

You can't blame those that conspired to bring down a sitting President with his nation at war?

We are not at war with Iraq. The Congress has never not declared war with Iraq.

Besides, if we were actually at war this president would have shut down our borders immediately after September 11, 2001. He didn't and hasn't. President Bush is more concerned with the borders of Iraq than he is with the borders of the United States.

 

[carpro]

We are not at war with Iraq. The Congress has never not declared war with Iraq.

Sarcasm intended, of course.

 

[carpro]

MoveOn owns the democrat party.

At least, that's what they said.

 

[Lagardo]

You can't blame those that conspired to bring down a sitting President with his nation at war?

You have an interesting way of describign the political process. Its almost as though you believe that its wrong to oppose the president.

 

[billwald]

Doesn't matter who "wins" elections. We have a one party system under two names. The same people own both parties. Everything is going to plan - to destroy the American middle class and revert to pre-WW1 economy with 85% working poor and 5% stinking rich.

 

[hillclimber1]

We are not at war with Iraq. The Congress has never not declared war with Iraq.

Besides, if we were actually at war this president would have shut down our borders immediately after September 11, 2001. He didn't and hasn't. President Bush is more concerned with the borders of Iraq than he is with the borders of the United States.

Sure you can avoid the intent of the post, and deny reality if you want.

 

[hillclimber1]

You have an interesting way of describign the political process. Its almost as though you believe that its wrong to oppose the president.

Sorry it sounds that way. My intent was to point out that the American media, in consort with the radical element of the Democrat party, have been a bigger hinderance to the President than Al Quaida.

 

[Lagardo]

Sorry it sounds that way. My intent was to point out that the American media, in consort with the radical element of the Democrat party, have been a bigger hinderance to the President than Al Quaida.

Al Quaida hasn't been much of a hinderance...who would he be without him?

But I still wonder why I must blame the president's opposition for trying to "bring him down." That's what they should do. That's the political process.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Al Quaida hasn't been much of a hinderance...who would he be without him?

But I still wonder why I must blame the president's opposition for trying to "bring him down." That's what they should do. That's the political process.

And that is a sad commentary on politics and those who support such behavior.

 

[carpro]

But I still wonder why I must blame the president's opposition for trying to "bring him down." That's what they should do. That's the political process.

At least, that is what it has become. Sadly.

We have elections to "bring down" presidents.

This president is not running for office.

 

[KenH]

This president is not running for office.

Thank God for that.

 

[hillclimber1]

Al Quaida hasn't been much of a hinderance...who would he be without him?

But I still wonder why I must blame the president's opposition for trying to "bring him down." That's what they should do. That's the political process.

To conspire to take down a President is part of the political process?

 

[Filmproducer]

To conspire to take down a President is part of the political process?

For pete's sake, it is not conspiring against a president when you disagree with him or his administration. Moveon is a grass roots organization that lobbies to have their positions supported and backed in government It is a prime example of how the American political process should work.

If a democrat is elected as President will you be so adamant about supporting him/her? afterall you make it sound as if it is unamerican to disagree with the president and his policies, and in Bush's case failed policies.