Here’s an article in Rolling Stone (not exactly a triumphalist Republican magazine) about Moveon.org, explaining why the Democrats will remain electorally impotent for the foreseeable future:
For a political organization that likes to rail against “the consulting class of professional election losers,” MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group’s leadership and you won’t hear much about the agony of defeat. Wes Boyd — the software entrepreneur who used his fortune from creating the Flying Toaster screen saver to co-found MoveOn — blithely acknowledges the need to produce some electoral wins “in the classical sense.” But he sees the rise of MoveOn’s progressive populism as a moral victory in and of itself…
…Boyd is a whip-smart man with a deep passion for populist democracy. But speaking to him about MoveOn’s constituency is like speaking to someone who spends all day in an Internet chat room and assumes the rest of the world is as psyched as he and his online compatriots are about, say, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He seems to conflate MoveOn with the rest of America. “We see ourselves as a broad American public,” he says. “We assume that things that resonate with our base resonate with America.”
In fact, there appears to be an almost willful ignorance about who actually composes MoveOn. “We’re pretty light on the demographics,” Boyd says without apology. “It’s funny, when we talk to people in Washington, that’s the first question we’re asked.” He adds with note of self-satisfaction: “We’ve been largely nonresponsive.”
Not to mention non-successful. There’s a term for people who gain “moral victories.” What is it again…? Oh, yeah–“losers.”
Here’s an article in Rolling Stone (not exactly a triumphalist Republican magazine) about Moveon.org, explaining why the Democrats will remain electorally impotent for the foreseeable future:
For a political organization that likes to rail against “the consulting class of professional election losers,” MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group’s leadership and you won’t hear much about the agony of defeat. Wes Boyd — the software entrepreneur who used his fortune from creating the Flying Toaster screen saver to co-found MoveOn — blithely acknowledges the need to produce some electoral wins “in the classical sense.” But he sees the rise of MoveOn’s progressive populism as a moral victory in and of itself…
…Boyd is a whip-smart man with a deep passion for populist democracy. But speaking to him about MoveOn’s constituency is like speaking to someone who spends all day in an Internet chat room and assumes the rest of the world is as psyched as he and his online compatriots are about, say, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He seems to conflate MoveOn with the rest of America. “We see ourselves as a broad American public,” he says. “We assume that things that resonate with our base resonate with America.”
In fact, there appears to be an almost willful ignorance about who actually composes MoveOn. “We’re pretty light on the demographics,” Boyd says without apology. “It’s funny, when we talk to people in Washington, that’s the first question we’re asked.” He adds with note of self-satisfaction: “We’ve been largely nonresponsive.”
Not to mention non-successful. There’s a term for people who gain “moral victories.” What is it again…? Oh, yeah–“losers.”
Here’s an article in Rolling Stone (not exactly a triumphalist Republican magazine) about Moveon.org, explaining why the Democrats will remain electorally impotent for the foreseeable future:
For a political organization that likes to rail against “the consulting class of professional election losers,” MoveOn seems remarkably unconcerned about its own win-loss record. Talk to the group’s leadership and you won’t hear much about the agony of defeat. Wes Boyd — the software entrepreneur who used his fortune from creating the Flying Toaster screen saver to co-found MoveOn — blithely acknowledges the need to produce some electoral wins “in the classical sense.” But he sees the rise of MoveOn’s progressive populism as a moral victory in and of itself…
…Boyd is a whip-smart man with a deep passion for populist democracy. But speaking to him about MoveOn’s constituency is like speaking to someone who spends all day in an Internet chat room and assumes the rest of the world is as psyched as he and his online compatriots are about, say, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. He seems to conflate MoveOn with the rest of America. “We see ourselves as a broad American public,” he says. “We assume that things that resonate with our base resonate with America.”
In fact, there appears to be an almost willful ignorance about who actually composes MoveOn. “We’re pretty light on the demographics,” Boyd says without apology. “It’s funny, when we talk to people in Washington, that’s the first question we’re asked.” He adds with note of self-satisfaction: “We’ve been largely nonresponsive.”
Not to mention non-successful. There’s a term for people who gain “moral victories.” What is it again…? Oh, yeah–“losers.”
Instead of working the media, Dean kicked off his much-ballyhooed tour of “Red America.” But the tour got off to an unfortunate start for the chairman. In Kansas, Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius made sure she was all booked up and unable to meet with him. Dean was reduced to begging yokels to do more to help the cause. “I’m asking you to run for the school board, I’m asking you to run for the city council, I’m asking you to run for library trustee.” Pity the poor rural Kansan when the Dean-inspired Democrat candidate for dog catcher busts out into a chimerical conspiracy theory about the neo-cons at the next community candidate forum.
Remember all the warnings we’ve had over the years from the wise heads in the punditocracy, how if we supported Israel, or removed the Taliban, or removed Saddam, or dissed Arafat, or promoted democracy in the Middle East, that the “Arab Street” would rise up in anger?
Well, I guess they were finally, after all those years of false predictions, proven right.
I think that Syria is finding itself in a quagmire. So is the MSM.
[Update at 1:48 PM EST]
Rick Savage emails:
I’m waiting for Ted Kennedy to proclaim that Lebanon is Syria’s Vietnam, and demand an immediate pull out!
Remember all the warnings we’ve had over the years from the wise heads in the punditocracy, how if we supported Israel, or removed the Taliban, or removed Saddam, or dissed Arafat, or promoted democracy in the Middle East, that the “Arab Street” would rise up in anger?
Well, I guess they were finally, after all those years of false predictions, proven right.
I think that Syria is finding itself in a quagmire. So is the MSM.
[Update at 1:48 PM EST]
Rick Savage emails:
I’m waiting for Ted Kennedy to proclaim that Lebanon is Syria’s Vietnam, and demand an immediate pull out!
Remember all the warnings we’ve had over the years from the wise heads in the punditocracy, how if we supported Israel, or removed the Taliban, or removed Saddam, or dissed Arafat, or promoted democracy in the Middle East, that the “Arab Street” would rise up in anger?
Well, I guess they were finally, after all those years of false predictions, proven right.
I think that Syria is finding itself in a quagmire. So is the MSM.
[Update at 1:48 PM EST]
Rick Savage emails:
I’m waiting for Ted Kennedy to proclaim that Lebanon is Syria’s Vietnam, and demand an immediate pull out!
I wondered what Andrew Sullivan’s point about Bush and big-government conservatism was last week. Ramesh Ponnuru has responded to his post in a similar manner:
His thought experiment, meanwhile, is thoughtless. For it to begin to work, his President Al Gore would have had to have overthrown the Baathist regime in Iraq, enacted Health Savings Accounts, cut taxes, proposed a free-market reform of Social Security, nominated conservative judges, and so forth. (There have been more conservative policy achievements under this president than there were at the height of Gingrich’s revolution, a fact which certainly tempers my nostalgia for it.) Is Sullivan really suggesting that opposing Bush and backing John Kerry would have been the truly conservative thing to do in the last election? Oh right: That is what Sullivan thought. Now he’s complaining that NR refused to join him in his folly.
I wondered what Andrew Sullivan’s point about Bush and big-government conservatism was last week. Ramesh Ponnuru has responded to his post in a similar manner:
His thought experiment, meanwhile, is thoughtless. For it to begin to work, his President Al Gore would have had to have overthrown the Baathist regime in Iraq, enacted Health Savings Accounts, cut taxes, proposed a free-market reform of Social Security, nominated conservative judges, and so forth. (There have been more conservative policy achievements under this president than there were at the height of Gingrich’s revolution, a fact which certainly tempers my nostalgia for it.) Is Sullivan really suggesting that opposing Bush and backing John Kerry would have been the truly conservative thing to do in the last election? Oh right: That is what Sullivan thought. Now he’s complaining that NR refused to join him in his folly.