You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

March 15, 2007

I'm Confused By The Internets

A NY Sun story has this encouraging news:

While the language tying the president's hands on Iran is gone for now, it is possible that it could crop up again in the Senate, where Senator Webb, a newly elected Democrat from Virginia who was chosen by his party to give the Democratic response to Mr. Bush's State of the Union address, has introduced similar language as a standalone bill. The Daily Press of Hampton Roads, Va. reported this month that "Webb said he has won backing for his measure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and would likely seek to attach his legislation as an amendment to a spending bill now moving through Congress to fund the Iraq war."

The main headline on the Web site of, an influential left-wing site, tells visitors, "Support Senator Webb's bill to rein in Bush on Iran."The site says, "Senator Jim Webb introduced a bill that requires the president to get approval from Congress before taking military action in Iran. Call your senators and ask them to support Sen. Webb's bill."

Moveon may not be able to get Webb's bill made law, but there's certainly no way it will happen without them. Yet when I go to their site I don't see this. Nor do I see it listed as one of their current campaigns.

Can one part of the internets help me understand another part that's confusing me?

Posted at March 15, 2007 07:15 PM | TrackBack

I think the democratic party would be a lot more effective if somebody held a really swanky party and invited the most puffed up neoliberals(and Joe Lieberman)and held them there while all the important voting was scheduled, and we could have pantomime senators, perhaps wearing bear suits, show up in their place to vote.

We'd have to tell them that if they showed up, the pope would endorse their candidacy for presidency*. And there would be cake.

*although I have a feeling David Obey wouldn't fall for it.

Posted by: Jonathan Versen at March 15, 2007 07:49 PM

Now THAT'S a great idea. Make sure there are PLENTY of delicious refreshments, get Mr. Obey well oiled and he'll go along. I never saw a politician who didn't like to drink. (ALL your bestest legislation gets passed at 3:00 am anyway.)

Posted by: Mike Meyer at March 15, 2007 09:28 PM

moveon has a website? good on them!

Posted by: hibiscus at March 15, 2007 09:46 PM

It was there at the top of the site yesterday, where the Iraq War anniversary vigils are now. Maybe after Monday it'll be back in that spot.

But what I don't understand is why it didn't at least get moved down into the 'current campaigns' section. That's unsettling, but I'm putting it down to ineptness rather than anything more sinister: Two days ago, after getting an alert about organizing March 19 vigils, I went to look at the website, but there was no sign of anything about them. Including in the 'current campaigns' section. So they're just really bad at posting items to the 'current campaigns' area.

Regrettably, this lagged and slipshod recording of campaigns on the website has been true for a long while: E-mail alerts give a much clearer picture of their actions and priorities than the website. It's mystifying.

Posted by: Nell at March 16, 2007 01:52 AM

I suppose I'm being cynical, but with the recent newspaper stories reporting that Moveon is "privately" urging Pelosi to beef up the limitations on Bush in the recent "waive-if-you-want-to" Iraq legislation, combine with this report on anti-bomb-Iran legislation which Moveon doesn't seem to be pushing very hard as you've discovered, I think we're seeing quite a bit of Kabuki theater here.

Given the fact that Democratic partisans Moveon spent the entire election cycle avoiding the Iraq War issue, combined with the fact that the Democrats' victory was clearly driven almost overwhelmingly by voters wanting out of the war and yet the Party has managed to shirk away from any substantive move to actually get us out of the war, is it unforgivable to suspect insincere posturing by Moveon here, worried that its fundraising base might begin to suspect a rat?

Posted by: Rojo at March 16, 2007 01:58 AM

Rojo: More rats than in building 18.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at March 16, 2007 09:34 AM