« Sidebar Dropdown Menus | Main | Hardball »

Moving On

I'll confess that for a young, internet-oriented, progressive person I know virtually nothing about how MoveOn.org operates and how decisions get made over there. That said, I'm disquieted by their deafening silence on the question of eliminating Social Security. They really ought to get involved for a variety of reasons. In this second term, we can choose to hang together, or we can choose to hang separately. A little solidarity with the pomo left's friends in the labor movement is absolutely vital to creating a real broad-based progressive movement and not just a bunch of squabbling factions.

UPDATE: Oh, my bad. Via Mark Matson. I don't think a link on the front page would kill them.

January 13, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83422227753ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Moving On:

» Social Security Petition from The Moderate Liberal
Moveon.org as an online petition to Congress opposing Social Security privatization. Via Matthew Yglesias (sort of). [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 13, 2005 3:02:56 PM

Comments

http://www.moveon.org/socialsecurity/

Posted by: Alexandra Kelly | Jan 13, 2005 2:40:25 PM

So I guess you didn't get the email that Tom Matzzie sent out today?
http://www.moveon.org/socialsecurity/

Posted by: Trickster Paean | Jan 13, 2005 2:40:43 PM

I think it's a little wierd that I saw a TV commercial this morning while working out that they sponsored calling on folks to call Senators to urge not to confirm Gonzales, but I haven't seen anything similar to them on Social Security, an issue that seems to have greater clear long term impact, and where Democrats seem a lot more likely to be able to win, and that doesn't have the nasty likelihood of blowing back at us with the Hispanic community or at least giving Bush greater opportunity to trumpet how great he is to have the first Hispanic Attorney General. This is why we need more CEO type Democrats that understand the notion of strategically deploying one's limited resources (and I don't just mean financial).

Posted by: flip | Jan 13, 2005 3:03:01 PM

Yeah, I just got an e-mail from them, too.

Posted by: Jim E. | Jan 13, 2005 3:03:36 PM

Agreed! Have you yet seen the gorgeous, expensive commercial pitching Bush's Social Security ideas in super-vague terms? I saw it on CNN yesterday. It's clearly a campaign-style commercial spot.

Who is paying for these milion-dollar+ commercials? Are we, the taxpayers?

Posted by: Deborah White | Jan 13, 2005 3:54:32 PM

If you're interested in learning how they work, one of my good friends is Move On's Advocacy Director. Drop me a line if you'd want to grab a drink or something.

Posted by: Judah Ariel | Jan 13, 2005 5:00:43 PM

"A little solidarity with the pomo left's friends in the labor movement is absolutely vital to creating a real broad-based progressive movement and not just a bunch of squabbling factions."

Hear hear!

Bush's SS misadventure offers us a once in a generation opportunity to build a center-left coalition unified around economics that can run this country as a majority.

MoveOn ought to figure this out. After all, they bought it, they paid for it, and they own it.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 14, 2005 1:14:15 AM

PoMo left? I thought that we were the reality-based left now, facing down the PoMo right.

Posted by: Julian Elson | Jan 14, 2005 1:24:11 AM

Speaking of the lefty "netroots", there's a free article at the WSJ worth reading about how Markos Zuniga of DailyKos fame is guilty, guilty, guilty of Armstrong Williams-style ethical crimes.

Markos took Deanie campaign money to blog positively about Dean without disclosure. Former Dean internet guru Zephyr Teachout calls Markos and the execrable Jerome Armstrong out for their utter lack of ethics.

To be fair, IIRC, Armstrong stopped blogging while he was on the Deanie payroll, so I'd say he's significantly less guilty in this case than Zuniga.

Of course, none of this explains why Zuniga and Armstrong were endlessly repeating Drudge's Kerry botox slurs in March, after Dean had already dropped out. I guess that once they get bought, they stay bought.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 14, 2005 5:16:31 AM

I'm not a huge fan of the traffic that swamps Daily Kos in recent months, but, with all due respect, comparing Armstrong Williams to what Markos and Armstrong did is pretty pathetic, at best.

Throughout the primary, Kos openly admitted that he was consulting for Dean. In fact, that was noted in more than a dozen articles written at the time and he posted in on a front-page disclaimer:

http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002972.html

His response to the story is here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/02014/6287

And, in case no one remembers, Kos officially endorsed John Edwards in February ... so I don't see the big deal. It's a non-story ... and it is a sad attempt to blur the lines between a real journalistic travesty like the Williams case.

Posted by: Jmac | Jan 14, 2005 7:18:21 AM

"Kos openly admitted that he was consulting for Dean"

He noted that he was doing some technical consulting for Dean. And even that partial disclaimer wasn't on the front page for most of the primary season.

Meanwhile, he vociferously proclaimed his neutrality. If Teachout is to be believed, his lack of neutrality is exactly what the Dean campaign dollars were buying, not any technical expertise.

"comparing Armstrong Williams to what Markos and Armstrong did is pretty pathetic"

As far as I can see, the difference is that Williams was bought and paid for with public taxpayer money, while Zuniga was bought and paid for with private campaign money.

This difference has more to do with the buyer than the seller. Would Williams be any less guilty if he'd been paid for with RNC money instead of taxpayer money?

Zuniga's ethical "complexity" is nothing new. This is just another nail in the coffin.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 14, 2005 8:00:27 AM

"And, in case no one remembers, Kos officially endorsed John Edwards in February."

Yup. That came about 48 hours after the no longer viable Dean said that Edwards would make a better nominee than Kerry.

"so I don't see the big deal. It's a non-story"

If you were a partisan Republican, I expect you'd be shilling the same nonsense about the Williams case.

To me, the fact that the lefty blog with the largest readership can be bought and paid for in an intra-party fight is quite important news. If no one holds Zuniga accountable, he'll do it again, and so will others who share his lack of ethics.

It's up to us to police our own, which is why Teachout spoke up in the first place.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 14, 2005 8:14:16 AM

He noted that he was doing some technical consulting for Dean. And even that partial disclaimer wasn't on the front page for most of the primary season. ... Meanwhile, he vociferously proclaimed his neutrality. If Teachout is to be believed, his lack of neutrality is exactly what the Dean campaign dollars were buying, not any technical expertise.

So you're upset that he was bought to be quiet? And that he was bought to do technical work, not honest-to-God consulting and advising? I don't see where this line of thinking is going. And I distinctly recall Kos being critical of Dean during the primary, as he was of a variety of candidates who were running (of course, I'm having difficulties getting his archives working, so I can't offer you any specific examples ... if I can figure it out I'd be glad to link them).

To me, there is a distinct difference in accepting money to push an agenda - especially taxpayer money - as Armstrong Williams did, and then accepting money - private campaign funds - to do technical work. The fact that he remained neutral, offering praises and criticisms alternately strikes a strong difference to me.

Posted by: Jmac | Jan 14, 2005 8:48:57 AM

"To me, there is a distinct difference in accepting money to push an agenda - especially taxpayer money - as Armstrong Williams did, and then accepting money - private campaign funds - to do technical work. The fact that he remained neutral, offering praises and criticisms alternately strikes a strong difference to me."

IMHO, you miss the point rather broadly. If Teachout is to be believed, Zuniga was not receiving money for technical work. He was receiving money to advocate the Dean campaign while concealing that fact.

And if you actually believe, as you assert, that Zuniga "remained neutral" during the primary campaign, I'm not sure we have much to talk about.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 14, 2005 9:33:10 AM

Tag Closed

"To me, there is a distinct difference in accepting money to push an agenda - especially taxpayer money - as Armstrong Williams did, and then accepting money - private campaign funds - to do technical work. The fact that he remained neutral, offering praises and criticisms alternately strikes a strong difference to me."

IMHO, you miss the point rather broadly. If Teachout is to be believed, Zuniga was not receiving money for technical work. He was receiving money to advocate the Dean campaign while concealing that fact.

And if you actually believe, as you assert, that Zuniga "remained neutral" during the primary campaign, I'm not sure we have much to talk about.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 14, 2005 9:34:41 AM

We apparently both had italics issues! :)

Another distinction I think that's important to make here is analyzing Teachout's intent and story. That is when Williams was accused, he came out and said 'you're right ... they paid me to pitch their story and that's what I did' after hiding and/or lying about it for the past two or three years. So the two sources - the leak and Williams - corroborate this point.

That differs from Zuniga (is it weird that I keep think of former 'Melrose Place' great Daphne Zuniga?) and Armstrong in the fact that they have challenged some aspects of Teachout's claims. And that they were upfront and fairly clear that they took some money for some services. Armstrong, as you noted, did quit MyDD until Dean's campaign went kaput. And the evidence shows Zuniga disclosed his relationship with Dean and remained fairly neutral on the issue, and thus was able to criticize and praise at the appropriate times.

I suppose we just disagree over the differences between public funding and private funding and how much that implicates either accused party. Plus I think the form of media is another key aspect. Is blogging a true form of journalism? As a journalist, I don't really know. I'd be interested in seeing some of Matt's take on this, being a journalist as well.

Posted by: Jmac | Jan 14, 2005 11:21:14 AM

"And the evidence shows Zuniga disclosed his relationship with Dean and remained fairly neutral on the issue..."

We disagree about what the evidence shows on both of these points.

"Plus I think the form of media is another key aspect. Is blogging a true form of journalism?"

Of course it is.

And as in any kind of journalism, there is nothing wrong with being an advocate. But things start being wrong when you're a paid advocate. And things start being wrong when you don't fully disclose your financial interests.

And non-disclosure has always been Zuniga's modus operandi.

Posted by: Petey | Jan 14, 2005 11:51:07 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.