I quit MoveOn a week after I joined back in 2003, sickened by precisely this kind of doubletalk and intellectual dishonesty.

Someday there will be a terrific political organization which does a great job of representing critical thinkers with a social mindset. MoveOn doesn't fit the bill.

Except, moveon is not a polling organization and does not present itself as such. (Like, say, Gallup or Zogby). Plus, I think most reasonable people wouild agree that the bill DOES in fact represent the first concrete step towards stopping the war. A lot of people voted their conscience when they voted for Nader, and look where that led us. We are always talking about "reality," the reality is to vote against this bill will prolong the war, it's as simple as that. You want to stop the war, this is as good a place to start as any, and better than most.

We know what's at stake, because we don't just get our news from Pariser's E-mails, or the MSM. We're also reading DailyKos, MyDD, Salon, etc., so we know, already, the names of the progressive Dems uncomfortable with Pelosi's plan. But we also know it's (past) time to get off the dime on this issue, which is why we voted the way we did.

That's a shameless polling question. I expect and want better from MoveOn and Pelosi. But the method is different from the strategy, and I withhold judgment for now on that.

Expecting accurate, credible data from a partisan organization's push poll is like expecting accurate, credible data when you ask your spouse, "Does my ass look big in these?"

As an increasingly disillusioned member of MoveOn, I can confirm that the poll to support Speaker Pelosi's cave-in was, in fact, a push poll. I was so horrified at the wording that I wrote to MoveOn to complain.

The problem with MoveOn is that it makes activism look too easy. I use the internet as a tool to assist with other activism and organizing I do in my community and within the peace and justice movement. But, too many people think that they can stop the war by sitting in front of their computers. They think they can go to a couple of vigils, answer a couple of polls, and let MoveOn do the rest. Their attitutde, I find, lacks interrogation about their real responsibility as citizens, is often re-inscriptive of the patriarchal paradigm, and rarely offers any real opposition to the current administration. Just like the Democrats.

MoveOn did not represent me in this poll. A simple thumbs up or thumbs down was not what was needed. But, that's all we got. And it stinks.

Is Pelosi's bill ideal? No. But it looks like it might be passable. Would that be some real progress? Yes.

That's the pro and con of divided government for you. We've seen how bad not having compromise has been under 6 years of Bush with no checks or balances.

I'll praise our far left reps (Kucinich and company). Having a bill as (subjectively) good as this one is impacted by their advocacy. But the bill that they would want won't pass anytime soon. My guess is that if the far left and the far right are equally incensed, then we're probably serving the country as a whole as best we can.

Falling on the sword on this one leaves even more to die by the sword in the long-term.

Ian

The real cost of the current administration spreads far beyond their breach of specific laws or conventions, even beyond their goal of subverting the constitution and imposing an imperial presidency on the United States. The true cost of the way this administration has done business is the way that their opponents have alternately refused to oppose their tactics or have actually adopted their tactics themselves.

America needs to ask itself whether it believes the ends justify the means. Does "making America safer" justify torture, eavesdropping and the subversion of justice? Does the elimination of tyranny justify the deaths of innocents, illegally waging war and widespread corporate malfeasance? Does accomplishing political goals justify the shockingly dishonest discourse that passes for information in this current climate? Is it justifiable to subvert your morals to defend them? Is it even possible?

There is no doubt that Rovian political tactics have yielded many short-term accomplishments for the GOP and neoconservatives. But at what cost? How will the GOP recover its legitimacy after this presidency? How will the Republicans be able to win elections without pandering to an increasingly radical evangelical base? Are liberals willing to make a similar sacrifice?

What good is it to fight for your goals if you have to give up what you believe in order to win? Its a shame that MoveOn has subverted their honesty to accomplish this goal, but mostly its a shame that they're willing to act like their opponents in order to defeat them. The tragedy is not what Bush has tried to do to America; the tragedy is that he might have succeeded.

I agree with an earlier post: give Move-On members some credit. Pariser's email was hardly the first time I had learned of the vote. To the contrary, I had been thinking about it--and thinking about ways to get my voice heard on the issue--for several days when the Move-on "poll" offered me an opportunity, which I was quick to take. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see how ideological purity can come out a winner on the messy issue of the Iraq quagmire.

There are some good points on both sides here:

- This 'polling question' is undoubtedly biased and presents the data accordingly. On the other hand, however, this is less a traditional 'get the public's opinion' kind of poll, and more like a ballot initiative for the MoveOn community. Looking at it in that light, it is easier to accept the format of the question. MoveOn is trusting that their members already know the gist of the situation, if not all of the details, and is holding a vote for support of the Pelosi Plan, not a decision between two options(is there a formal alternative of any sort under consideration?)

- Similar to these tactics however, was the recent campaign to force the Nevada Dem Party to renig on their 'Fox News' debate deal. They made the very good point that Democrats should not be validating this right-wing rhetoric machine. MoveOn did not provide the NevDems reasoning for using Fox. For that I had to call them- as MoveOne requested- to find out that the NevDems had an (almost) equally compelling argument that, especially out west, Fox was the most popular station and that by 'using' them to get their message out they could reach out to those people who are not their usual base-- to those indies and true conservatives fed up with the current Republican Regime. It was a tough choice, but I still said "Fuck Fox"

- I find it interesting that an organization usually referred to (or dismissed) as a bunch of far-left crazies, has made the more politik decision to move ahead with a plan that is not only progress, but is possible. MoveOn members have decided that, within a legislative scope, Pelosi's plan is the most effective way forward. Harsher anti-war proposals seem to have no chance of passing- and even if they did, they would not end the war-- Bush would veto. Taking that into consideration, the options are limited to 1) Impeachment, which won't happen, and 2) Placing budgetary restraints on the administration in a manner which safeguards the troops, makes progress towards an end to the conflict, and necissarily, shows that the new Democratic Leadership is doing something about Iraq. I would note that a phased withdrawal over the next year falls in line with public opinion, and that limited progress that succeeds is much better than great progress that is ultimately defeated.

- Regardless of your opinion on the MoveOn 'Poll', it is proving to be effective as a populace-powered tool for encouraging reluctant legislators to make a choice , one way or the other, instead of incessantly debating the best way forward and griping over politically motivated details which will ultimately be defeated by veto. That is the decision here- make a futile stand on principal, against veto power, or use the power that you have , the power of the purse, to achieve your goals.