Chris Murphy: $502K. Joe Courtney: $113K.

so where will it end? (0.00 / 0)

Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas is doing a series of ads for Candies shoes.. are they gonna vote on that too???

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 21:31:53 PM CDT

Disingenuous? (0.00 / 0)

Ok, which is worse? Republicans who are disingenuous? Or Democrats not savvy enough to a) kill this measure from getting on the floor for a vote in the first place? or b) have the courage to stand up against it when it came for a vote?

I like Bill Clinton. And, I'm not making fun of his description of GOP disingenuousness. But, I really hoped that the people who controlled Congress nowadays didn't have to work for the very party America voted out of Congress last November.

It's votes like these that makes me wonder, why did we vote Democrats into Congress in the first place?

Republicans maybe disingenuous, but Democrats have been disappointing.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 22:08:43 PM CDT

WTF? (0.00 / 0)

I thought that this silliness was restricted to the Senate.  I initially had a small problem with the ad, but considering how the Bush regime has politicized everything, the ad was on the money. 
  Petraeus is now the faceman for this sham and Democrats everywhere are scared of "not supporting the troops".  I hate that phrase so much that I am thinking about making up my own little yellow ribbon magnets that say "I hate the troops because I want them in Iraq forever" and put them in the place of all those so-called patriotic magnets made in China.  I bet those morons would never know the difference.
  I am going to do a little more research on this ridiculous vote and give Courtney's office a call to express my displeasure.

---

by: snorwich @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:34:03 AM CDT

WTF indeed (0.00 / 0)

That three-letter phrase has never been more appropriate.

This action is nothing less than a demoralizing gut-punch to the millions of MoveOn members who support progressive candidates everywhere. The people we elected to be leaders are stupidly falling for the right's tactics to paint what is in reality a very mainstream movement as a fringe group, and in doing so legitimize the rightwing neocon fringe. I can't believe so many of them are falling for this schtick.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to it."

-Lawrence Summers

---

by: joesaho @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:23:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We need more info before going nuts here (0.00 / 0)

Like all of you, I was shocked and appalled when I first heard about this. But since then, I'd found out that the entire thing was an amendment tacked onto an important bill at the last minute.  Apparently it was some kind of budgeting bill that needed to be passed by Sept. 30th, or funding for something or other would be cut off.

I can't find enough detailed information about this, but please keep in mind that this sort of maneuver is typical Republican grandstanding, and for them it's a no lose situation - if the Dems vote down the funding bill, they're the bad guys for holding up the money.  If they vote FOR the bill, they're the bad guys for screwing with free speech.  You've got to hand it to the Republicans - they really know how to game the system.

Anyway, this is what I've been able to gather so far.  Kos, FDL, HuffPo, and other national blogs don't have a lot of details on this bill...only that it included this tacked-on amendment.  Let's try to find out more before we show up at our Representative's homes with pitchforks and torches. 

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:53:34 AM CDT

This is an ongoing p*ssing match (0.00 / 0)

Al Franken did an op ed that Larkspur linked - this Strib article references it:

Franken wrote a commentary piece for the Star Tribune earlier today, in which he commented: "[Coleman] voted last week against a resolution that condemned personal attacks on anyone who had served our nation honorably. That would include Democrats like Max Cleland, John Kerry and John Murtha -- proud American veterans who were the targets of political attacks not just on their character, but on their patriotism. In 2004, when Murtha (a Silver Star winner) called for better armor for our troops, Coleman himself accused him of 'emboldening the enemy' and 'undermining the morale of our troops.'

"And as his reelection campaign gets underway, it's worth noting that Coleman has hired the same media consultant who ran ads in Georgia that juxtaposed pictures of Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, with Osama bin Laden."

He's referring to a Barbara Boxer amendment #2947, tied to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008 funding - Barbara Boxer included MoveOn.org, but also mentioned the Max Cleland episode, John Kerry and swiftboating -- in other words, it was a general, not specific condemnation of ad hominem attacks on those who have served or are serving.

On that vote, Dodd and Lieberman both voted YEA.  Here's the vote breakdown

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 07:20:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So what? (4.00 / 3)

It is quite possible to vote against an Amendment without scuttling an entire bill.

Here's more on the "Motio n to recommit with instructions, which is what the GOP used to get this voted on:

If the motion to recommit is with instructions, the originating committee to which the bill is returned is bound to follow those instructions. Usually the instruction is for the committee to "report the bill back to the House forthwith with the following amendment." The text of the amendment is then given in full. In effect, this is a last chance for the Minority to make a germane change in the bill. The motion to recommit with instructions is debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided, but not controlled (which means neither side may yield time) between the proponent and the opponent, although the time may be extended to one hour at the request of the Majority Floor manager. If the bill is recommitted with such "forthwith" instructions, the bill is immediately reported back to the House on the spot with the amendment, the amendment is voted on, and the House proceeds to final passage of the bill.

A simple "no" vote on the motion to recommit would have ensured that this language never made it into the bill.

Roll Call 910 was a straight up-or-down vote on whether to condemn a specific instance of free speech by MoveOn.

---

by: tparty @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:07:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just plain stupid (4.00 / 2)

I asked my wife this morning if she had heard about the MoveOn ads. She said no. We live in CT, and she works in New York and commutes every day on the train, where the NY Times is widely read. She's well-informed about the issues that she cares about, but never watches Fox News or any of the other cable news show unless I happen to be watching them. She never heard of the the "Betray Us?" ad.

We talk about issues all the time, and I never thought it was important enough to even mention it to her.

If Chris Murphy was afraid of losing votes, he shouldn't have been. The only people who considered the MoveOn ad scandalous are people who never would have voted for him in the first place. Yet, he tries to placate those people (but won't really, since he took all that money from MoveOn). And instead, insults the people who helped get him -- and scores of other progressive Democrats -- elected to a majority position in both houses of Congress.

MoveOn and progressive activists handed the committee chairmanships -- and power -- to the Democrats, including to Larson and DeLauro. THIS is how they use that power? 

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 07:27:19 AM CDT

MoveOn should ask these guys (0.00 / 0)

to give back the money. Very dissappointing.
I called Murphy's office and one of his staff told me that Chris "personally met" Petraus and Murphy was insulted by the ad.
I'm Very dissappointed. I thought Murphy had more courage then this. He is intimidated by a man in uniform so much that he forgets who sent him to Washington in the first place. Next time his staff calls me for money I'll tell them to call the General.

---

by: terhuxtim @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:42:38 AM CDT

At the risk of getting shouted down... (4.00 / 1)

I understand the Republicans are feigning outrage at this ad to try to score some cheap political points. And I understand that many of us are committed MoveOn members, and see these votes as slaps in the face after all the hard work and money we poured in to these campaigns.

But no organization is immune to criticism. It is acceptable for some progressives to take issue with the content of the General Betray-us ad. And it is quite possible that Congressmen Murphy and Courtney legitimately took issue with the content of the ad. I'm one liberal Democrat who also found the ad in poor taste.

We are being betrayed, but it is by the inept and incompetent civilian leadership of this country - not by the military whose sole task is to carry out the orders that the civilian leadership gives to them.

I understand that some in the antiwar community wanted General Petraeus to come to Washington and say what we all know to be true - that any progress being made in Iraq is negligible, etc. But as the leader of the hundreds of thousands of men and women on the ground in Iraq, he has a responsibility to keep their morale high; not to fly across the Atlantic Ocean, go on television and say that they are fighting in vain.

Civilian leadership of the military is a cornerstone of our democracy. While it may be desirable to see General Petraeus come out against the President now, the precedent of a military leader opposing the civilian leadership he is responsible to is far too dangerous to our democracy in the long run.

Let's fight the right battles. It was incredibly irresponsible of President Bush to send the General to speak for him in front of Congress. That is not the duty of a general, to act as a spokesman. General Petraeus was following his orders, and we should bring the fight to those who were so reckless as to give him those orders in the first place.

I must say, had I been in Reps. Courtney and Murphy's shoes, I would have voted the same way - although I would prefer a Boxer-style bill that took the Swift Boaters and the Saxby Chamblisses of the world to task as well.

---

by: OGDem @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:16:42 PM CDT

I have no problem with Dems in Congress disagreeing with the ad (4.00 / 4)

but I have a BIG problem with them voting to censure a CITIZEN action group's First Amendment rights.

Where are the censure resolutions against the swiftboat Vets and against the Republican 527 groups that slandered Max Cleland?  I didn't see any Dems pushing censure resolutions on these groups in 2004 and 2002.

---

by: Larkspur @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:26:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That admendment should have never made it. (0.00 / 0)

One of the many things that fuel my contempt for republicants is that they effectively shut the Democrats out of any decision making through their parliamentary tricks.  I think Reid and Pelosi should have returned the favor ten fold.  News flash to Nancy: The swamp is still full.  Had she truly drained the swamp, shut out the republicants, and stuck to the progressive agenda that would have benefited all Americans, this war would be over and we would be talking about health care, education, and the environment instead of Moveon's ad.

Disagree with the ad all you want, but to censure it is a waste of time and it just makes the Dems look like candyasses.  The time for candyassery is over; fight for what's right god dammit!

BTW, it is the responsibility of all members of the Armed Services to uphold the Constitution and to disobey unlawful orders.  Gen. Casey didn't seem to have a problem telling Congress that the Army is stretched to thin, so what the hell is wrong with Petraeus?  They're having problems meeting recruitment goals, so they raised the max age to 42, allowing felons in, and lowering the bar on test scores in an effort to keep bodies flowing in to a meat grinder.  Gen. Betrayus indeed!

Bottom line is that we have no business invading an area of the world that we have absolutely nothing about; to many people (morons and republicans), they're just ragheads that wear mandresses that hate us for our freedom, when the truth is that they hate us for our corporate first foreign policy and our ignorance.

I have to wonder if asshole Lieberman ever thought to condemn Ann Coulter when he cast his dumbass vote last week.

---

by: snorwich @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:04:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The glass house (0.00 / 0)

Where to start to clean house on ad hominem attacks? Has anyone noted that the moniker  General Betrayus, which the troops have been calling him for months by the way, sounds something like  -- okay, and awful lot like - Rush Limbaugh's name for Chuck Hagel awhile back (Senator Betrayus)?

Cluck. Cluck. Tut. Tut.  Tick. Tock. (how many American soldiers died while you were folling around with that silly amendment???)

---

by: greenpeas @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 20:42:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Disagree but Don't Censure (4.00 / 2)

I agree with Larkspur...it's OK if our congress people disagree with the ad, that's their right.  But a formal censure smacks of McCarthyism to me....  I could see that censure is appropriate for very serious acts, hate crimes, etc.  But to line up the might of the US Government against MoveOn for injuring the tender feelings of a General...it's Republican manufactured, inside the beltway, nonsense.

---

by: MVD @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:33:11 PM CDT

I added this paragraph to the end of my letter to Courtney (4.00 / 2)

If you still think that your vote for the censure motion against MoveOn.org was appropriate, will you sponsor a censure motion against Rush Limbaugh?  Media Matters reports -- http://mediamatters.... -- that during the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members, like the seven members of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division who wrote an op ed, "The war as We Saw It" http://www.nytimes.c... , in the New York Times , who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, "phony soldiers."  Surely, this defamatory label of our troops is worthy of a censure resolution like the one you voted for against MoveOn.org.

---

by: Larkspur @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 14:37:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And then Courtney asks for our money (4.00 / 4)

Many of you probably received the same email appeal I did the other day. My reply went something like this:

I'm a member of MoveOn and you obviously don't respect my point of view, so why on earth would you want my money?

Good luck getting reelected without all those MoveOn idiots out canvassing for you like we did last time.

The entire Democratic party seems intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008.

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 23:00:44 PM CDT

"snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008." (4.00 / 1)

LOL, sounds like something Olberman or Stewart would say.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:23:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He doesn't need your money (0.00 / 0)

Good point:

However, after thinking about this a little while today, most House Democrats probably don't think they need the netroots anymore. While we wre all a fine and acceptable stopgap fundraising measure when Demcorats were in the minority, and facing nearly a two to one fundraising deficit again Republicans, now they are in the majority and thus recipients of far more corporate PAC cash than ever before. In fact, Democrats now hold a decisive fundraising lead over Republicans, mainly because of the influx of this new cash.

---

by: tparty @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:35:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Instead of not donating, write a paper check and tape or staple a note like this on it (4.00 / 1)

"Warning: this check is from a MoveOn.org member.  Be prepared to fight Right Wing attacks after cashing this check."

---

by: Larkspur @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:18:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Courtney (4.00 / 2)

Has anyone been able to get an explanation from Courtney?  I've been trying but they staff say they don't know anything about it. 

---

by: anonymous @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:43:00 AM CDT