Democrats who condemned MoveOn took its cash

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: The Politico


More than 40 members who voted to condemn "General Betray Us" ad have accepted contributions from group.
(Photo: Composite image by Politico.com)

Forty-four congressional Democrats who voted to condemn MoveOn.org for its ad branding Army Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us" have accepted more than $3.9 million in contributions from the influential anti-war group and its members.

Among those who opposed resolutions specifically repudiating the full-page ad in The New York Times, only 17 Democrats and one independent took cash from the group and its members — contributions totaling almost $1.4 million.

The resolutions approved by the House, calling the ad an “unwarranted personal attack,” were only symbolic. But the split of MoveOn beneficiaries on the votes highlights something of a rift between Democrats and the anti-war activists who largely fuel MoveOn.

A Politico analysis of MoveOn’s campaign finance records, upon which this story is based, goes back to 2002 and includes only contributions given directly by the group and those it funnels from its members to candidates, not the millions it spends on television ads and other so-called independent expenditures to help favored candidates.

These tools, along with aggressive online organizing, have made MoveOn an undeniable political force. It has helped boost many Democratic candidates to victory, including 20 or so freshmen who were essential to swinging the House and Senate to Democrats last year. Yet all but three of those freshmen voted for the resolutions blasting the ad....

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6086.html

[Mass]

1. They did not condemn MoveOn. They condemn one ad.

But thanks to politico.com for their insight. :sarcasm:

Surely, the writer has never disagreed with one of his friends on anything or he has kept silent when he disagreed.

[madfloridian]

2. Yes, they condemned the group AND the anti-war left.

It was meant as a slap on the wrist to all of us.

[Mass]

4. NO, they did not... Actually, many of them made a lot of efforts saying they

did not condemn the anti-war left.

In any case, the article is totally hypocritical. You can disagree with friends on some occasions.

[madfloridian]

5. You are misrepresenting that event.

Bush said he disapproved of the ad...and miraculously a vote appeared. Amazing isn't it?

[Mass]

6. I do not condone the vote, but this article is BS.

May be it is time we stop using GOP leaning articles to make our case.

[Lerkfish]

14. if what they report is accurate, I see no reason to avoid the issue completely

regardless of source. For example, many times here, we have had discussions when Pat Buchanan made a salient point about this administration. Is the point unusable because Buchanan says it?

[saigon68]

24. General Betrayus is a Catamite for Bush

[Trajan]

29. I disagree .....

I support Move On, and I am DEFINITELY against the War in Iraq ..... But I thought the ad was a poor decision .....

Did I just slap my own wrist ? ....

One can agree with the primary objectives of Move On, yet criticize them for poor execution of public relations effort ...... But we have been over this time and time again already .....

[damntexdem]

8. No, they condemned MoveOn as well as the ad.

And they effectively condemned those of us who stand by MoveOn, and contributed to the ad, and especially again after the condemnation. And just as MoveOn should no longer contribute to those DINOs, neither will I.

[Robb]

9. I agree

...I don't see why we're making excuses for them.

It doesn't matter one bit what the fine print of their press releases says. The public's message was "this lawmaker condemns MoveOn.org."

[Maribelle]

23. No they didn't. They repudiated the personal attack in the Ad. Nothing more.

:grr:

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Read the resolution

They condemned MOveOn FOR THE AD. And it was a damn stupid thing to do. Not only did they waste time, but there's that saying about not biting the hand that feeds you.

[Lerkfish]

12. agreed

[Algorem]

3. They've got to give that money back.

Wouldn't want them to look hypocritical and all.

[Lerkfish]

13. not a bad idea, actually. Do you think a corporate donor would tolerate betrayal like that?

think about it.

[Maribelle]

7. And what has MoveOn said about Politico?

Even though Politico attempted to claim it would be bipartisan when it first came on-line, it didn't take very long to see behind the façade. The issues that ripped off their mask should guard people's acceptance of anything they say.

Their right wing bias obviously leads them to be baffled that Democrats had the audacity to not fall in lock step as republicans are required to do.

[Lerkfish]

11. is what they reported inaccurate?

did democrats who received monies from MoveON all vote against the censure of MoveON, or did some vote for?

even a biased source (if it is) can accurately report numbers.

[Maribelle]

21. Politico lied as pointed out in Post #1 when they said : Dems condemnd MoveOn.

Democrats did not condemn MoveOn.

Democrats repudiated the personal attack against Petraeus only.

In fact the actual wording of the ammendment said:
to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110wQVrA3:e121497:

[Lerkfish]

25. not my point. Were they inaccurate about who was funded and how they voted?

[Maribelle]

26. I haven't a clue, do you?

The art of disinformation is mixing truths with lies, and they are truly art-masters of disinformation.

[Lerkfish]

27. you seemed to be speaking as if you did have a clue.

certainly, you passed judgement as if you knew the answer.

[Maribelle]

34. Politico lied when they said : Dems condemnd MoveOn

That was a fact not passing judgement.

What's your point??? That regardless of their lies we should sift through to rest of their crap to see if its accurate? Sorry, their lying at the top makes the rest simply part of their disinformation capaign campaign, nothing more.



Amen.

[Larkspur]

30. The ad did not attack Petraeus personally

It asked a question and challenged Petraeus' overly optimistic view of what is going on in Iraq. Petraeus has a history of playing politics with the facts.

[sendero]

17. That said..

.... If I were running MoveOn, nobody who voted for that resolution would ever see a dime from MoveOn again.

[robinlynne]

19. They sure wont see a dime from me again!

[Maribelle]

22. Perhaps MoveOn is bigger than that.

Unlike the right wing hate mongers that feel the need to demand that the left treat our military as if they were widdle babies so so sensitive to those tuff words.

[cobalt1999]

15. So what?

Receiving a donation from a group doesn't mean you are bought by that group. In fact, I wish more politicians would stand up to groups/corporations that did donate to them.

If a group or company donates, they don't deserve any special treatment. I'm proud of the ones that stood up for their own opinions regardless of who gave them money.

[Psephos]

28. I agree with you...but others see things differently

"Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”

Email sent by Eli Pariser and Justin Ruben to the MoveOn list, 12/9/2004.

[HughMoran]

16. good. You don't really want quid pro quo do you??

I didn't think so. They need to be independent - even if this was a ridiculously stupid exercise in hypocrisy.

Edit - uggh! moronic spellchecker pluralized a work for no reason!

[superconnected]

18. When it's this twisted, it's propaganda.

Not sure if this writer is the same Kenneth P. Vogel who supports franken products.

[robinlynne]

20. Not like this is the first article about it. Yes they took money from move-on. And no they won't be

getting any more support.

[BenDavid]

31. General Petraeus or General Westmoreland?

[The Stranger]

32. Unforgivable. Why do they attack their own fucking Base?

[Maribelle]

33. ? Do we or don't we want democrats to act independent from those that contribute to their coffers?

I never did understand the ad, lobbing a personal atttack against the man in uniform instead of focusing on the thin facade of the lying decider and his sham of a surge.