Saturday, March 24, 2007

Amateur Liberals Shocked; Move on Moves On

So since the passing of supplemental spending on Iraq the response of the outlying fringes of the Democratic Party seem all the rage to dish. Bush tried his best to best what he called "an act of political theater" by denouncing it as "an act of political theater" while standing with a vet behind him to the left and a pretty blond soldier with wispy blue eyes at his right hand. No one noticed, amidst the spasms of outrage over Move On's move to support Pelosi. Move On took no official position without doing something horribly democratic: it twice emailed it's members to vote. 126, 000 Move On members participated in the (first) vote. 84.6% supported the bill. 9.2% said they weren't sure and 6.2% opposed it. Both votes garnered an equal response to Move On's email vote over supporting (or not) Ned Lamont last fall. Anti-(all) war bloggers began to mobile quickly to denounce and campaign against Move On, infected with amnesia over the founding of the online grassroots organization. Which was to ah... promote legislative action that provides results over ideological purity.

Let's get out the discection kit: little scapal, tweezers, eye dropper, ruler and latex gloves. Got your gloves on? So here's this anti-war movement on the cold and hard steel table of reality before you, and it wants to know why it's not getting what it wants from the Democratic Party. Three words: Veto Proof Majority. And ah... not everyone has to think the same thing, like we were brainwashed or something. Move On might be the most accessible target and competitor for media love but the anti-war movement has so starved itself in an effort to avoid the anti-IRAQ war crowd that it bites anything that moves. One despairs over political activists who can't fathom the difference between having your bill defeated by a session of Congress supposedly elected with a mandate to alter the course in Iraq, and a presidential veto. To put a measure on the floor of Congress that will only go down in flames, is to avoid a showdown with Bush. To insist that an ideologically pure bill supported by a segment of the American population that couldn't elect a majority of candidates to Congress should trump over the combined opinions of those members actually elected by majority vote is anti-American. See there? Very little matter in the brain cavity.

Let's move on. With a deep blade into the heart. Here we find a feeling of sickness because Move On dares to stick to it's founding principles (if you don't win, you aren't noble, you just loose) and applauding members of Congress who chose to vote the Dem line. Of course, this heart may judge that another member of Congress who voted to get nothing as being a representative in whom a voter could feel pride. Others may judge, but not Move On? Others may speak, but pragmatism must be silent? This heart quivers from an urgency because tens of thousands of people will die in Iraq if Bush blinks and signs Pelosi' budget? Of course, hundreds of thousands of people will die from other preventable reasons in that same ammount of time, and frankly if the anti-war movement spent all of it's time and money in other directions, more lives would be saved. So it is a fair question for Move On to ask: are you in this to bring the Iraq War to resolution or to see your mug shot on FOX?

Moving down to the shriveled stomach, we find barely the strenght to mention that both Move On and the Congressional Black Caucus announced support for Pelosi. There's an old saying that laws and like sausage, and one should not watch how they are made, which should really apply to the anti-all-war movement, who seem to be largely vegan. Also to be avoided: chess, the Olympics.

"The legislative charade mounted by the Democratic Party has nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq. There are, in fact, no principled differences between the Democrats and Bush when it comes to the imperialist aims of the war. Both parties, the Democrats no less than the Republicans, serve the corporate interests—the oil conglomerates, the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a whole—that seek through military violence to establish US control of the resources and markets of the world."

One cannot forgive the self-imposed confusion of anger at Bush with immediate withdrawal, or the idea that the Democratic Party would best serve America by pissing into the wind. One simply misses the slimy contents of the stomach in the light of the glaring ulcer which ills the anti-all-war segement of liberal America: who the frak do they think they are to accuse the Democratic Party of secretly being just like Bush? How far do they think they will get stabbing other liberals in the back? What, do they live alone on a barren Moon that their desires are alike the decrees of a jealous God?

Good enough reason for this moonbat to join up with Move On. Hah!!

Labels: , , , , , ,


Blogger Viper1 said...

I have one word...


5:23:00 PM  
Blogger olive said...

No such thing as a free lunch.


8:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home