MoveOn And Top Bloggers To Launch Campaign Pressuring Hillary And Obama To Back Dodd On FISA
Another interesting twist in the Dodd-FISA story.
In a move that will up the pressure on Hillary and Barack Obama to stand firm against the Senate telecom immunity FISA bill, MoveOn and a dozen top progressive blogs will launch an all-out campaign tomorrow to pressure the two Senators into publicly declaring their support for Chris Dodd's threat to place a hold on and filibuster the bill, Election Central has learned.
MoveOn spokesman Adam Green tells me that the group will send out an email to "thousands" of its members tomorrow morning, and thousands more throughout the day, asking them to call the offices of Hillary and Obama and demand that they publicly affirm their support for Dodd.
"We'll be asking Obama and Clinton to publicly get Chris Dodd's back and say in a statement that they will explicitly support his hold and filibuster," Green tells me. "Pretty much this is the exact same ask made to Joe Biden in a Washington Post chat. The question was, Will you join Chris Dodd? He said Yes."
If Hillary and Obama don't comply, Green added, "it would send an unfortunate signal to Democratic voters about whether they're willing to stand up to George Bush. The idea is to get Democrats to stand on principle and exercise the powers of their office to stop Bush from covering up how far he went in illegally spying on the private emails and phone calls of innocent Americans."
In another move that points to the significant degree of coordination among the top liberal blogs on the FISA issue, Green says that the following bloggers will also be directing their readers to call Hillary and Obama's offices and press them on this:
DailyKos, Atrios, OpenLeft, Firedoglake, MyDD, Glenn Greenwald, Crooksandliars, AmericaBlog, Digby, Taylor Marsh, Howie Klein, Ian Welsh
I've checked in with these folks, and virtually all have gotten back to me confirming their involvement.
In the long run it's unclear whether Dodd's hold and filibuster threat, whatever backing it gets from Hillary and Obama, if any, can really hold up the FISA legislation. Advisers to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have said that while they're willing to work with Dodd to assuage his concerns, they expect that the bill will go to the floor despite his objections. It's also unclear what the final bill will look like; the bill has only just emerged from markup in the Senate intel committee, and there's some opposition to telecom immunity among members of the Judiciary Committee.
Either way, opposition from Hillary or Obama, or both, could throw some significant obstacles in the way of the bill. And even putting aside whatever long term impact this has on the legislation itself, such a campaign by MoveOn could at the least make telecom immunity an issue in the Dem Primary.
We've checked in with the Hillary and Obama campaigns for comment and we'll bring you their responses when we get them.
Comments (65)
Liberal Larry wrote on October 23, 2007 4:28 PM:We should NOT have to beg Ivy League elitists to stand up for the Constitution.
phil james wrote on October 23, 2007 4:41 PM:Sound of a squawking parrot.....
AWWWWKKKKKK! Soft on terrorism! AWWWKK!
...This Republican message has been brought to you by the Fox Ministry of Disinformation and World War III Planning.
Michael wrote on October 23, 2007 4:45 PM:I hate to say it, but I think move-on does more harm than good and gives the repukes needless ammunition. Dodd is already doing a great job, I wish move-on wouldn't taint it. If mrs. bill and obama keep burying their head in the sand so be it.
Keith wrote on October 23, 2007 4:46 PM:Obama's spoken out against granting the telecom's retroactive immunity. HRC has been silent, so let's see where she stands.
But one critique: Shouldn't Moveon and these blogs be putting pressure on the Judiciary Committee members where this bill is currently being considered? They have the power to strip these provisions from the bill BEFORE it leaves it committee.
lucky wrote on October 23, 2007 4:55 PM:what about the rest of the candidates? you should mention thier opinion if they have expressed one. edwards? has gore spoken up?
DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 4:58 PM:Rather than ask if they will support a particular tactic that may or may not be necessary or effective, why not just ask if they will oppose the immunity measure worked out in the Intelligence Committee?
Of course, as Keith notes, we already have Obama's answer to that question.
Duffy wrote on October 23, 2007 5:11 PM:Don't forget to send faxes and phone your own Senators on this.
hwc wrote on October 23, 2007 5:12 PM:Clinton voted AGAINST the FISA bill that passed back in August. I believe Obama did, too.
Moveon is threatening two Senators who are ON THEIR SIDE on this issue.
Wouldn't it make more sense to go after legislators who are NOT ON THEIR SIDE, like, I dunno, maybe some Republicans?
EH wrote on October 23, 2007 5:15 PM:hwc: maybe, but they're softpedaling it at the same time. the fisa bill needs to be a policy discussion and acknowledgement of the constitutional difficulties in retroactive immunity. a public discussion. kudos to moveon for being the only shit instigators worth listening to.
Don Quixote wrote on October 23, 2007 5:17 PM:Sure I believe that Senator John D. Rockefeller IV is supporting immunity for the telcos out of conviction of their service and not because he received more than $42,000 from them. Sure I do!
phil james wrote on October 23, 2007 5:20 PM:Yeah. That's it. Go after the Republicans. That's worked so well on every other rotten White House scam in the past. I'm sure the Republicans will draw the line here for Georgie despite the fact they have been a hard sell on this sort of thing for the past 6 years.
Danno wrote on October 23, 2007 5:21 PM:Seems to me, the beltway country club is way behind mainstreet on this issue (and others-- *cough* Iraq). Perhaps the Demos are trying to impress W's 25 per cent support block of voters?
If the "no backbone" party is unwilling to take a stand on anything, why should independents and progressive voters vote for them? Because they're "not" Republican? Please. Lieberman is "not" a Republican too, and I'd rather vote for a lot of Republicans before I'd vote for him.
Yup, keep quiet you MoveOn-ers. Don't want to upset the delicate sensibilities of those DINO dolts and their neo buddies that are driving the country into the ground. Shsssh.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 5:21 PM:EH:
Here's Obama's statement:
“I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start.”
This was issued the same day that Dodd announced his opposition. No soft-pedaling here. Unequivocal opposition to retroactive immunity. Moveon needs to moveon to the members of the Judiciary Committee.
Dennis wrote on October 23, 2007 5:21 PM:Here is another good place to put some pressure; I've been contacting them frequently.
http://www.democrats.org/page/st/contact
Please join me.
Giv'em hell!
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Mark wrote on October 23, 2007 5:23 PM:We don't know they are on our side until they SAY they are on our side. I don't trust any of them. It is, after all, the Constitution. I think they can answer this question without hedging.
Elise wrote on October 23, 2007 5:23 PM:It's as if MoveOn.org is craving irrelevancy. How many times will they get things wrong?
Obama has said he cannot support this bill. Name a time that Obama has said he'd support a bill and then turned around and voted for it. No one has been able to point to one and I've been asking now for a week. I'm still waiting.
If Obama says he can't support it then he will vote NO.
On the other hand, Hillary has been silent...not a peep.
Could MoveOn waste any MORE of our time here? How about attacking a Republican for a change! Or are we too in love with losing in 2008 in order to get that done. Maybe these folks secretly WANT Hillary to win so we have something to complain about for the next 8 years?
I can't figure it out, but I know they're not getting a dime of my money again.
Dan wrote on October 23, 2007 5:24 PM:Greg, as you're so often fond of saying, "What about Edwards??"
P J Evans wrote on October 23, 2007 5:28 PM:Sure, Obama's said he's with Dodd. He's said he's for or against other stuff, and then missed the votes on them.
He gets credit for *actual votes*, not for speeches and press releases made.
Hillary - her managers are trying to figure out what her position should be. By the time they decide, the bill will have been voted on.
kitt wrote on October 23, 2007 5:28 PM:Michael wrote on October 23, 2007 4:45 PM:I hate to say it, but I think move-on does more harm than good and gives the repukes needless ammunition. Dodd is already doing a great job, I wish move-on wouldn't taint it. If mrs. bill and obama keep burying their head in the sand so be it.
I disagree completely. But do you also thing that Glenn Greenwald, Digby, Atrios, Firedoglake, MYDD, Crooksandliars, Taylor Marsh, Americablog also do mor harm than good?
phil james wrote on October 23, 2007 5:30 PM:Difference with Edwards of course is that he can't vote on it. But he certainly can state unequivocally that he does not support retroactive immunity.
Jane wrote on October 23, 2007 5:33 PM:Voting against a bill is a good step but pointless if the bill is passed anyway.
Sometimes a procedural intervention such as stopping Reid from evading Dodd's hold is necessary.
That is what we are asking all Senators opposed to the bill: make Reid play by the rules.
DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 5:34 PM:P J Evans,
But that is the odd thing--whether you trust him or not, the only thing Obama CAN do at this point is make speeches and issue press releases. There is simply nothing for him to vote on right now.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 5:37 PM:Seems to me they should be going after Senator Reid.
DonnaG wrote on October 23, 2007 5:41 PM:I would love to see a filibuster in which our presidential candidates devote hours and hours and all of their words to the issues of concern to millions of Americans.....issues of constitutionality, balance of powers, unhealthy influence of corporate monies [including the telecoms] in politics, blank checks for illegal wars, and so forth.
Zhonni wrote on October 23, 2007 5:46 PM:Obama is against!!!
He said this more than two days ago if I am remembering correctly.
So don't lump Obama and Clinton together, for it is Clinton who has not made a statement one way or another.
kitt wrote on October 23, 2007 5:54 PM:Lieberman’s upfront support of[Susan]Collins energized the anti-war base in a way that matched the dollars generated by Lieberman? MoveOn raised $350,000 for Tom Allen simply because RGJoe[Leiberman]was hosting a DeeCee lobbyist-stuffed fundraising event for Tom Allen’s opponent. (And we[FDL] helped!)
How's that for a good example from a post today on FDL that shows just how "detrimental" MoveOn has been
http://www.firedoglake.com/
If Hillary and Obama don't comply, Green added, "it would send an unfortunate signal to Democratic voters...
It would do more than that. It would end their candidacy, at least for this Democratic voter.
GySgt wrote on October 23, 2007 5:55 PM:I guess some commentors here don't get it just like our leadership in the house and senate just don't get it.
The way this game is played is showing our leaders that the people that vote for them will support and defend them against the GOP bullies and their willing allies in the mainstream media.
In other words we got their back and will use the blogs and the little time we can get on tv, radio and print to defend them.
Finally, saying you are against something is not the same as dragging your cot in the room when the time comes.
EH wrote on October 23, 2007 5:58 PM:Anonymous: You'll notice that his mention of immunity is parenthetical to his statement. This is soft-pedaling. Immunity is the larger issue in the FISA bill the same way a seemingly innocuous or routine bill will have redefinitions of terms in other laws. FISA without immunity is fairly standard, and this is why the Bush Administration is being such hard-asses about immunity. Read the writing on the wall: immunity is the lynchpin.
keith wrote on October 23, 2007 6:01 PM:GySgt
Finally, saying you are against something is not the same as dragging your cot in the room when the time comes.
Exactly. All Dodd has done is said what he will do if and when the bill comes out of committee with retroactive immunity. Obama has spoken out against the bill. Biden is against retroactive immunity. HRC, as of yet, hasn't stake out her position.
I'm all for putting pressure on politicians, but it seems to me that they should be using their considerable efforts and resources to pressure members of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Reid and Senator Clinton
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 6:05 PM:EH:
There's nothing parenthetical about his statement. He says retroactive immunity is a NON-STARTER.
urbino wrote on October 23, 2007 6:09 PM:FISA without immunity is fairly standard
No, actually, it isn't. It's a bad bill even without telecom immunity. Immunity is just the topmost outrage. It's a place to start, not the whole task.
Bloix wrote on October 23, 2007 6:15 PM:Anon and Zhonni-
It doesn't matter a damn if Obama and Clinton vote no on the bill. If it comes to a vote, lots of Dems will vote no, and it will pass anyway. They have to support the filibuster. That's much harder - it means crossing Reid.
If all the presidential candidates in the Senate - Biden, Clinton, Obama, and Dodd - support the filibuster, that will give a huge amount of cover to other Dems to buck Reid. If they don't, then many Dems will stay silent on the filibuster, and it won't matter what they do on the vote.
So what's important here? Keeping the Majority Leader happy or protecting the Constitution? Let's see what they say.
hwc wrote on October 23, 2007 6:17 PM:How can you have a position on a bill that doesn't exist (i.e. hasn't come out of committee?)
That's like saying that you don't like what you are having for dinner, even though you don't know what it is.
urbino wrote on October 23, 2007 6:22 PM:Because we saw the ingredients that went into the kitchen.
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 6:22 PM:Bloxi:
That's my point. This is all premature. Dodd is only talking about what he will do, yet everyone is acting if he's already got his cot on the floor of the senate, along with his copy of the DC Yellow Pages!
The key here is REID.
urbino wrote on October 23, 2007 6:31 PM:Because we saw the ingredients that went into the kitchen.
Not to mention: Sen. Rockefeller opened the kitchen door last week and gave us all a big whiff.
Mike M. wrote on October 23, 2007 6:34 PM:I'm proud of Dodd and every senator running for President has to support him in order for me to consider giving them my primary vote.
But, the key is, indeed, Reid.
If Reid doesn't keep the bill from passing, he should be replaced as majority leader. Pure and simple.
zennurse wrote on October 23, 2007 6:38 PM:"But one critique: Shouldn't Moveon and these blogs be putting pressure on the Judiciary Committee members where this bill is currently being considered? They have the power to strip these provisions from the bill BEFORE it leaves it committee."
Firedoglake regularly posts 800 numbers and sends folks to the phones for important votes and issues, and commenter selise posts the hearing schedule almost daily. There are frequently liveblogs there on various congressional hearings as well. Firedoglake also hosted Chris Dodd today at 11:30 for a video comment on this with Q&A.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/in-dodd-we-trust/
about 25 minutes.
Kitt wrote on October 23, 2007 6:53 PM:"But one critique: Shouldn't Moveon and these blogs be putting pressure on the Judiciary Committee members where this bill is currently being considered? They have the power to strip these provisions from the bill BEFORE it leaves it committee."
The phone calls and letters continue. But how you can call putting pressure on the most visible Democrats, the ones who are running for President, not putting pressure on the Judiciary Committee, is beyond me. That is indeed putting pressure on the Judiciary Committee. Big time!
Keith wrote on October 23, 2007 7:06 PM:It's not. It's putting pressure on Obama to reiterate his opposition to telecom immunity. He put out a statement the same day. But apparently because he didn't use Dodd's name in his statement, he's deemed to be wishy washy. And he just put out ANOTHER statement supporting a filibuster if the bill comes to the floor in its present/proposed form.
It is good to put pressure on Clinton because she has otherwise tried to ride under the radar.
And its good to hear that they are calling the Judiciary Committee members. Any word on what's going with REID?
bogie58 wrote on October 23, 2007 7:07 PM:There's no way this immunity provision comes through the judiciary commitee. Here's a list of Democrat Senators on it:
Leahy
Kennedy
Schumer
Feinstein
Feingold
Durbin
Cardin
No way they cave to Cheney-bush on this like some on Intel commitee.
urbino wrote on October 23, 2007 7:12 PM:That's a joke, right?
Kitt wrote on October 23, 2007 7:16 PM:bogie58 wrote on October 23, 2007 7:07 PM:There's no way this immunity provision comes through the judiciary commitee. Here's a list of Democrat Senators on it:
Feinstein
Last I heard Feinstein was all in for telecom immunity. Calling it "bipartisan" or some such hogwash.
Do you have a statement from her that says otherwise?
I wouldn't count on Feinstein for anything.
(And I voted for her, unfortunately!)
ActforChange from Working Assets sent out an alert yesterday to 250,000 members asking them to contact Sen. Reid to play by the rules and back Chris Dodd. This is not just procedural justice and backbone, there is no reason at all why we should not force Bush to defend the telecom companies who illegally invaded our privacy. Why do the work for him?
Jeremy Trudell wrote on October 23, 2007 8:47 PM:October 23, 2007: Public opinion service Rasmussen Reports recently released data from its October 12-14 polling that indicates that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul leads his GOP opponents against Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton among likely voters ages 30-49. He is the leading White House contender for the key demographic, polling higher than Clinton among baby boomers. Congressman Paul polls in at 47 %, compared with Clinton's 44%, among likely voters aged 40-49.
Diamond wrote on October 23, 2007 8:49 PM:These bloggers ar toothless bulldogs.
Before they do that, they should hold Hilary Clinton to her vote for the Iraq war, for shich she has refused to apologize
Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 8:50 PM:The democrats will not save you. They are just the nicer side of a good cop/bad cop game played by the nations elite. Don't be fooled. Hillary voted for the war-3 times, she voted for the Patriot Act. Support Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
Richard S. wrote on October 23, 2007 10:44 PM:Could someone correct me, if I am wrong? Doesn't the Majority Leader of the Senate have to power to block bills from coming to the floor? It seems to me that Harry Reid has no guts. He let the stupid and dangerous republicans move to censure MoveOn.Org, on the Betrayus Ad, get to the floor for a vote...and now he's going to do the same thing with the FISA bill, letting the telecom companies off the hook?? I've been a Democrat for 44 years and I'm ashamed of the wusses we have for Democrats in the Congress today. I give up! From now on I'm an independent!
Ava Mae Lewis wrote on October 23, 2007 10:50 PM:something I don't understand...
Majority held by Dems... no one can introduce a bill, call for a vote, or get it out of committee or on the floor if Dems don't do it - right?
So why are they doing it?
mouth of the sourth wrote on October 23, 2007 11:05 PM:It is so obvious that Jay Rockefeller has been bought and paid for by the telecom industry to grant them immunity. I am truly ashamed to be a Democrat at this moment and I hope our party strips Rockefeller of his chairmanship for this. He is disgrace as are most of the I've-been-in-Washington-too-long crowd in our party. They act like whipped dogs instead of leaders. They pay no attention to what people in this country want, but what their donors want. I wish there was an alternative to our party. I would vote for them.
Mark Cooper wrote on October 23, 2007 11:22 PM:A time for moral leadership:
Two days before John F. Kennedy made his famous statement in Berlin – “Ich bin ein Berliner,” he made an even more profound statement in Bonn, quoting Dante’s inferno
“The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who maintain neutrality during times of moral crisis.”
Unfortunately, the current crop of Democratic candidates “are no Jack Kennedy.”
Folks all you have to do is allow yourself to visit the so called conspiricy side of life to see that all the top leaders in our country and every aspect of our security systems are Freemasons in fact bush and the old man, Gore, even clinton and kerry all masons. They with other secret societies are running the government and she will be bussiness as usual. That business is to fleece America in this war and shock us into submission with false flag terror. If you want to elect someone that will at least try to end the war you need to elect someone outside of the masons,skull and bones, illuminati, etc.. and then that elected official must rid our capital of these satanic ritualistic dark societies. But have no fear as they have already corrupted our electoral system and they will win by that ave or by martial law. Search on freemasonry and the bohemian grove and see whats really going on in the world.
Horrified wrote on October 23, 2007 11:34 PM:I cannot believe that this is happening, our freedoms and our interests are totally irrelevant to the democratic party, it appears, as the constitution gets eroded, the killing of our soldiers keeps on happening, the lies appear to be truths if said often enough, and the king is ruling the empire with impunity because of the limp democrats.
myshadow wrote on October 23, 2007 11:39 PM:There's no way this immunity provision comes through the judiciary commitee. Here's a list of Democrat Senators on it:
Leahy
Kennedy
Schumer
Feinstein
Feingold
Durbin
Cardin
No way they cave to Cheney-bush on this like some on Intel commitee.
I've got news for you. Feinstein will be the first quisling in this pack. I have Dodd's back on this...To hell with 'pressureing clinton and obama' They should have been there with Dodd. Sanders was the first to his side then Feingold and Biden.
glasnost wrote on October 23, 2007 11:40 PM:Guys, it's a crime if or when you buy into the MSM CW on Moveon. I'm not saying that everything they do is right, but they're 100 percent on the right side of this cause and they're the most powerful progressive organization in America, period. Don't demonize them unless you want a thank-you card from Dick Cheney.
If Obama's already on the right side of this, which wasn't obvious when Dodd put out his statement days ago, then what's the harm in making sure about that?
xargaw wrote on October 24, 2007 12:19 AM:The very fact that Democrats have to press to have these two take a stand sugggests neither is fit to lead. Waiting to see which way the wind blows is not leadership!
Querent wrote on October 24, 2007 12:40 AM:No one is asking Obama or anybody else to "clarify his position". If Obama said he's opposed, he's opposed. The point is, we're talking about supporting Dodd's right to place a hold on the bill, which under current Senate Rules, means it cannot reach the floor for a vote until Dodd then removes the hold. That effectively kills it.
If the weakling Reid caves as usual and ignores the hold, then what's required is a real live filibuster, which Dodd has promised to provide. That means either the bill fails on a cloture vote, which requires 41 votes against cloture, or an actual talking marathon which continues until the Senate votes to move on to other business.
One person can filibuster, but it's pretty hard on him or her. The call for support is to support Dodd's NO on cloture, and if necessary to cooperate with him on keeping the debate going indefinitely. Statements of support are nice, but ultimately irrelevant. ACTION must be taken by all progressive Senators.
billbo13 wrote on October 24, 2007 12:57 AM:Folks,
The reason people are asking Obama and Hillary for a simple statement, rather than one which uses language that "could" let them off the hook is that this is the constitution we are talking about. Biden was asked if he would support a Hold, or even a FILIBUSTER, and said the one word we want out of Hillary and Obama, simply YES.
I agree with xargar, if these two cannot lead on issues to protect the constitution, why should we vote for them???
dcshungu wrote on October 24, 2007 6:44 AM:Keith wrote on October 23, 2007 4:46 PM:[B]ut one critique: Shouldn't Moveon and these blogs be putting pressure on the Judiciary Committee members where this bill is currently being considered? They have the power to strip these provisions from the bill BEFORE it leaves it committee.
I agree with that comment whole-heartedly. The Netroots' and far-left bloggers' bullying tactic of trying to pressure politicians into adopting their agenda or POV is one of the main reasons why I have never cared for their brand of "progressive" politics. It's like, "Do it our way or we'll make you pay." Have any of these folks thought about just picking up the phone or emailing the Obama and Clinton camps to discuss this matter with them before threatening to flood them with phone calls from their rabid followers, who generally have the subtlety of a sledge hammer? For all we know, Clinton and Obama might already have been inclined to support Dodd's filibuster, so why not contact them to find out what their take is on the whole thing, and possible offer to work together to ensure that an acceptable bill goes to the Senate floor for a vote? IMHO, trying to persuade the Committee is the way to achieve the desired outcome. To go after one or two Senators and bully them into supporting a bill is counter-productive and might achieve nothing. These are the same folks who think that Hillary is not qualified to be POTUS because of her vote on the AUMF bill. The truth of the matter is the AUMF bill would have passed even with Hillary "Nay" vote. Individual Senators often cannot alter the outcome of a vote on a bill. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be important to work to build consensus and support for a bill through gentle persuasion and not through bullying tactics. Moreover, such tactics could have a "chilling effect" in future dealings with the lawmakers, who would be put off and refuse to deal, especially if it is not during an election year. They can bully Obama and Clinton NOW because they would deal for fear that refusal might affect their chances to win the nomination; but what would happen in the future when neither has as much at stake? For folks who undoubtedly have very high I.Q.s, these "progressives" seem to have little taste for a reasoned debate. Muscle over mind, any day, any time...
I fear that in the Netroots and the far-left blogosphere, we are seeing the emergence of the "progressive" equivalent of the Christian right, the neocons, and far-right elements of the GOP, whose "take no prisoners mentality" has contributed to the current demise of the GOP and the conservative movement.
Tone it down, please...
harry lickpussey wrote on October 24, 2007 8:40 AM:There needs to be some public pressure put on Clinton and Schumer to see where they stand with respect to the idiotic proposal of the NY Governor Spitzer to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens in NY State.
Stephen wrote on October 24, 2007 10:25 AM:
MoveOn is the American index from which the length of the slide can be measured.
Everything I have seen of theirs comes from the traditional values and patriotism that give America a face of decency, morality, and order. They fight totalitarianism. Where's the downside?
If their work seems extreme it may be the viewer who needs reminding about the character of their country beyond the narrow perspective of the Bush dictatorship.
Jim wrote on October 25, 2007 12:43 AM:Sorry, but you Dems are phenominal liars and absolutely filled with hate. It never ceases to amaze me, but I guess those are the values that Stephen says MoveOn stands for.
Here's an example of the lies and distortion. The author reports above that MoveOn spokesman Adam Green states that the candidates need to oppose the FISA bill to "stop Bush from covering up how far he went in illegally spying ..." First, Bush has nothing to "cover up." Second, the bill in now way prevents him from "covering up how far he went..." It reduces restrictions on future wiretapping activities. It doesn't say 'Bush gets a free pass on what he's already done.'
It's a gross distortion of the truth, but it doesn't matter. He's made no case against the bill on it's merits or demerits, but again, it doesn't matter. You leftist loonies are so filled with hate, that as long as he accuses Bush of a crime, you'll believe it and you'll fall in line and upport anything he says. You are ignorant sheep!
Now, before you try to turn around the charge and accuse me of hating you, let me state clearly for the record, I have no hate for any of you. Utter contempt and a complete lack of respect - yes. But hate - no.
Ron Linville wrote on November 13, 2007 6:27 PM:I'm on the Move On list, but I never got any update on this--que paso?
