Thursday, December 09, 2004

You mean Can'tMoveOn.Argh ISN'T non-partisan?!?

Gee, I thought the reason we were supposed to take these clowns seriously was because the media said they were all for the little people and what not, regardless of party. (It was just a coincidence that they spent 100% of their money on anti-Dubya ads.) Guess not, as MoveOn to Democratic Party: 'We Own It' reveals:

Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

A scathing e-mail from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters on Thursday targets outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe as a tool of corporate donors who alienated both traditional and progressive Democrats.

"For years, the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base," said the e-mail from MoveOn PAC's Eli Pariser. "But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers."

Under McAuliffe's leadership, the message said, the party coddled the same corporate donors that fund Republicans to bring in money at the expense of vision and integrity.

"In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive," the message continued. "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

Well now. Since when has billionaire currency manipulator George Soros been considered "grass roots" and what kind of grass do you need to smoke to think that?


allen said...

While the assertion of ownership of the Democratic party is pretty exciting, I'm not quite as sanguine about the collapse of the DP as I was a couple of weeks ago.

While there are powerful forces wrenching the Democratic Party apart - the Deaniacs want to run it of the left-cliff and the moderates are getting really tired of losing - there are also powerful forces working to hold the party together.

Saint Hillary needs an intact party in order to run in '08. While she'll always appeal to the Moscow-wing of the Democratic party, they know she's really one of theirs, in order to reach the moderates she needs a viable, national party. She'll exert her not inconsiderable energy, intelligence and influence to keep the loony left from tearing off the left hunk of the party and, less likely, the moderates from tearing off the less-left edge of the party.

I think most incumbent Dems will follow her lead and for about the same reason. They have too much at stake and won't throw it away. Their influence will pull supporters who might like to see support for their extremist policies but realize you can't vote for a bill if you aren't elected.

That still leaves the segment of the party and they may be impervious to persausion due to their moral perfection. They may be willing to tear the Democratic party apart in the hopes that a newer, better party will arise from the ashes. One can hope.

chooktah said...

Funniest (most absurd!) comment of the week goes to E. Clift's characterization of Howard Dean as "essentially a centrist". HA!