By Michael J. Smith on Monday September 11, 2006 09:56 AM
Alan Smithee writes:
Ya know, I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most politically sophisticated person on the planet. Nobody is ever going to mistake me for Noam Chomsky. But, Holy John Hoyt! Even I know better than this:
Either you're with us, against us, or you don't matter:
... There are NOT two candidates in the race.... there are in fact four candidates and two write-ins for the 7th. The candidate I support, and will vote for in November, is the Green Party’s Dave Chandler. Yet he is not acknowledged by MoveOn.org, which won’t even allow for a write-in.... So why the exclusionary MoveOn effort?Expecting a fair shake from MoveOn is like expecting sober-minded probity from Paris Hilton. I mean, of course they're going to rig the ballot! They're Democrats!
Comments (3)
Just before the weekend, Moveon promptly cancelled its public Forum in response to complaints from the Anti Defamation League that "hate speech" had appeared on it. Eli Pariser wrote a fawning letter apologizing for the alleged anti-semitism. One of the offending comments cited was a link to Xymphora's "Why Are Jews so Jew-y?" -- a forceful but not irrational observation that the concept of a "chosen nation" (both persecuted and superior) is at the heart of Israel's racist policies and the world's dislike of them.
Posted by bobw | September 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Posted on September 11, 2006 10:16
I credit MoveOn with sincere, limited good intentions and a generous helping of shallowness. They're the nice middle class white people who want to help you become nice white -- but other colors are okay, really!!! -- and middle class too. People like that don't want to appear to tolerate things that could be construed as bigotry, even if the construction of that is a reach. They need comity to get things done. Best to err on the side of people-pleasing, even if that offends some people too. In world that consisted of concerned, polite, relatively prosperous people, who were appalled by bigotry, unprovoked violence and systemic unfairness, the organization would be as innocuous as a really successful school tag sale committee, the kind that raises money for merit scholarships and interesting field trips.
I'm sure the leadership agonized over the Soros money the way a happy camping Silicon Valley start up might over an initial public offering of stock. Ultimately, they determined that it was good for the stakeholders, god bless 'em. Similarly with the polls and platform talks. Many of the stakeholders do need looking after. A responsible steward doesn't confuse the dumber ones with too many choices. They need to take the long view and be careful to distance themselves from extremists, especially the ones who might alienate future benefactors.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | September 11, 2006 11:03 AM
Posted on September 11, 2006 11:03
"In world that consisted of concerned, polite, relatively prosperous people, who were appalled by bigotry, unprovoked violence and systemic unfairness, the organization would be as innocuous as a really successful school tag sale committee "
nice passage j alva
Posted by js paine | September 11, 2006 11:38 AM
Posted on September 11, 2006 11:38