|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
May 27, 2004Advocating WithdrawalI've mentioned the ads run by MoveOn.org a few times in conversations about the war over the past few months. I'm occasionally told that my reading of their position is wrong. That, for example, they weren't against the $87 billion in reconstruction spending -- they were just against the war initially, and wanted to point out better things that could be done with that money. It's all a little clearer now that MoveOn is one of 42 liberal groups backing an initiative called Win Without War, which calls for the Bush administration to set a specific date for withdrawal from Iraq. Their argument goes like this: There is no military solution in Iraq. We therefore call upon our government to end the military and economic occupation of Iraq and to withdraw our troops by a date certain. There is no justification for letting any young American be the last to die for a mistake. This is, I suppose, the organized representation of a certain segment on the left that thinks we should withdraw. I applaud them for taking a position -- although I hesitate to call it a clear position. The title they add at the top of all their statements says "Set a Date for the Withdrawal of our Soldiers" -- and that's how they're representing it to the media, apparently. That's a pretty broad request. The president could set a date a month, a year, or two years from now. Their actual statement, though, makes it pretty clear they're talking about a quick withdrawal, not just setting a formal end-date. Posted by William Swann at May 27, 2004 07:49 PMComments
This is the Nader position. How many MoveOn supporters will vote for Nader rather than Kerry because they are, above all else, anti-war? I continue to believe that Nader could turn an otherwise comfortable Kerry victory into an extremely close election decided by only a few thousand votes in a couple of states. Posted by: Todd Pearson at May 27, 2004 08:38 PMI agree with Todd. This was a movement that was started in conjunction with the Dean campaign. These are people that are way more liberal than the average Democrat, and I think their involvement in the election doesn't help Kerry. The fact that Al Gore spoke in front of them is more evidence that the former Vice President has simply become irrelevant. Posted by: Mathew Pruitt at May 28, 2004 08:57 AMI wonder if these people are truly perverse enough to support Nader on principle if it means ensuring a bush re-election. I still think that in battleground states the vast majproty of Bush-haters will hold their nose and vote for Kerry. Nader will only get loud numbers in states where the outcome is assumed to be a foregone conclusion. In battleground states his numbers will be a head count for the ideologically pure left fringe. Posted by: bk at May 28, 2004 09:44 AMNader's more popular here in Texas for exactly that reason. A fair number of local Republicans are happy to help him out... |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|