SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home He Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

THE PLANK MAY 31, 2007

He Ain't Seen Nothing Yet

BY TNR STAFF

MoveOn runs radio ads against Michigan Sen. Carl Levin. Here's some of the script:

woman: It's sad.man: I just feel let down.another woman: I expected more from him.announcer: They're talking about our Senator, Carl Levin. We were so proud when he voted against going to war in Iraq, proud when he became Chairman
of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But that pride has turned into disappointment. ... Isn't it time for Carl Levin to make us proud again?

I knew the base was extremely displeased with Levin's unwillingness to back Feingold's resolution limiting war funding, but I don't quite get MoveOn's calculation here. Levin is incredibly beloved in Michigan, and it's not likely such ads could seriously damage him heading into '08. He's also proven to be one of the senators most resistant to the base's pressure on Iraq; being an object of severe contempt on the blogs doesn't seem to have touched him. It seems to me the ad money would be better spent against Sununu types.

--Eve Fairbanks

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 51 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

51 comments

Not to like MoveOn.org.

- drdannyu

May 31, 2007 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Until the war in Iraq is over, there really are no other issues. The Democrats are in the majority and we have to make that work for us. Levin is in the way -- he must be moved. Neil

- purcellneil

May 31, 2007 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and neither are the handful who donate to it. Please stop spewing right wing stereotypes.. I'm a liberal dem, and I detest moveon.org

- MaryM

May 31, 2007 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's just possible that Levin is attempting to be principled here. Occasionally, principled people disagree. That doesn't have to translate into "disappointment" or "has to be moved." What's wrong with an approach framed as, "we really respect you, but don't understand why you voted to support this war." And then hear what he has to say. I agree with the original post. Levin is a good guy, and a reasonable one. There are plenty of consistent bad actors and enablers out there who should be the targets (this means you, Holy Joe).

- miceelf

May 31, 2007 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MoveOn wants the same ideological purity that the right has used for electoral success. They'll attack anyone who doesn't hew to their line.

- boneill

May 31, 2007 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And we saw just exactly how well that worked out in Connecticut. Attacking a popular senator from the left in Michigan is right up there with "land war in Asia" on my list of things to avoid.

- drdannyu

May 31, 2007 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MoveOn.org: Providing America with a more obnoxious Lieberman since 2006.

- adamvaught

May 31, 2007 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My car cries out for that bumper sticker, Adam.

- drdannyu

May 31, 2007 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MoveOn's strategy is sound? Levin isn't Lieberman--not by a stretch. Believe me, I'm as frustrated, no, make that ANGRY, as you are. I'd like to see Bush, Cheney, et al tried for treason and murder. But the Dems can't operate in a vacuum. Plus, there is something to be said for letting Dubya and the Republican's hang from their own petard. To be sure, that tactic doesn't save the life of one of our guys. However, the truth is, that without veto-proof majorities to pass legislation directing funding towards withdrawal activities, the Dems can do little. (If you have ideas, please enlighten me.) The facts are little consolation, but at least Levin wasn't sounding war drums, nor providing rhetorical support for this fiasco.

- tec619

May 31, 2007 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and I said nothing

- bigm

May 31, 2007 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that they came for him. The problem was they didn't get him, and the reason they didn't get him is enlightening in terms of their flaws. Come to think of it, if MoveOn.org couldn't take down one of the most annoying men in America as they raised money to do, why are they so strict about others living up to implied promises?

- miceelf

May 31, 2007 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where is their victory? Stopping the war (though that was impossible)? Getting Dean the nomination? Getting Kerry the Presidency? Their only triumph was Lamont, and he got thumped in the general. Why do they feel they have so much weight?

- boneill

May 31, 2007 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

there's that, but my point was more basic- why do they expect instant undiluted success from Democratic politicians when they can't provide it themselves? On the bright side, I guess, this is in great measure the people who voted for Nader and started this whole mess, so if they're SETTING OUT TO harm Levin, he doesn't have much to fear...

- miceelf

May 31, 2007 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

are the absolutists of the Left. Their problem is that even if they "get" their man (or woman) in the primaries, they lose the general elections because the nation is not as extreme as the far Left or the far Right would like.

- Claudiusmarcellus

May 31, 2007 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

are the absolutists of the Left. Their problem is that even if they "get" their man (or woman) in the primaries, they lose the general elections because the nation is not as extreme as the far Left or the far Right would like. The reason they think they have so much weight is, in short, the presidential primary system. The primaries did not bring the nomination process "to the people", as the reformers promised, it delivered the process into the hands of the reactionaries and extremists of all stripes.

- Claudiusmarcellus

May 31, 2007 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the double post.

- Claudiusmarcellus

May 31, 2007 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not to pick nits, but you get hoisted by your own petard, not hung. Finally! All those years of reading (and re-reading) Shakespeare pays off!

- Jed Gremmler

May 31, 2007 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They believe in the Purity of their cause, so everyone else has to fall in line. And when they mess up, it is never their fault. They remind me of every college student ever.

- boneill

May 31, 2007 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"They remind me of every college student ever." Good line. It would be even better if you included 'and Editor in Chief" of a certain nat'l magazine...

- MrCookie1

May 31, 2007 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the MoveOn types remind me of every infantile leftist type I've ever encountered. (For all I know, they may all be in MoveOn.)

- caaggies

May 31, 2007 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

but he's wrong on the issue of the war in Iraq. Levin is accomodating the "stay the course" crowd, even though staying the course has pretty much been discredited (and renamed "the surge" I might add). I don't really have anything to say about MoveOn, but those of us who think we should end this war immediately also tend to think it is an issue that trumps all others. What is Levin's defense? That we don't have a veto-proof majority? Well, as a leading member of the majority, he could help rather than hinder. So why give your vote to Bush? You'd have to believe that Bush was on the right track - doing the right things - and headed for the right outcome. In short, you'd have to be daft, and you would deserve all the criticism you would get. Some here have claimed that Connecticut is a good example of why it is wrong to attack Levin on the war. Seems to me the folks in CT who voted for Lieberman -- not those who opposed him -- are the ones regretting their vote, no? Fuck Levin and the war he supports. Neil

- purcellneil

May 31, 2007 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democrats need to increase their majority... and with a Democrat in the WH in 09, they likely be working with the President to bring as many of the soldiers home as possible. I think that all energies must be channeled into these two ends. The was will continue irrespective of what MoveOn or anyone else says, until Democrats get a larger majority and have a sitting Democratic President. Not rocket science...

- MrCookie1

May 31, 2007 at 6:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. to MaryM: calling moveon.org the liberal base is sadly not an example of "spewing right wing stereotypes." i sad sadly because like you, i am a liberal dem who detests moveon. but most liberal dems do not. please don't pretend that tnr is doing something unusual calling moveon the liberal base. in fact, i have never seen it called anything else by anyone, left right or center. your post really makes no sense. 2. to virtually everyone else: i agree. of course, it shouldn't be a surprise that those posting to TNR don't like moveon. i would imagine those posting to moveon aren't fans of TNR. 3. to Neil: what are you talking about? "F Levin and he war he supports" ?? Levin was one of the few Dems who opposed the war from the outset! how can you call this a war he supports. one can oppose this war and support Levin's vote. In fact, I support Levin and believe he is more principled than almost anyone in either party, based on his war votes. he has ignored the ideologues on both left and right. read Eve's piece: tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070507&s=fairbanks050707

- achester99

May 31, 2007 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

to prove to any Democrat, liberal or otherwise. His stand against defunding wasn't ideological, it was practical, and it was moral. If we are to successfully end the war, we have to be responsible in doing so. Thank goodness Levin refused to go along with Harry Reid's stupid "High Noon" strategy, that collapsed as predictably as tomorrow's sunrise.

- Tgossard

May 31, 2007 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not when you stack it up next to something like global warming. If MoveOn or others want to prioritize Iraq over all other issues and magnify the inevitable disagreements that Democrats will have about such a difficult issue, it will be yet another case of shooting ourselves in the foot (not unlike what happened when the alleged Green Party helped put Bush in office).

- robr

May 31, 2007 at 7:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He opposed the war at the beginning. I assume he still doesn't much like the war. BUT, he does insist we keep on funding it, and therefore it continues WITH his support. I read Eve's piece and his stand on the war sounds high-minded, principled and in some sense admirable. I would applaud the man, except I actually care more about the outcome than I do about his motivation. And, to be honest, Levin has calculated the potential damage to Democrats that would accrue if they cut off funding. It could be much worse than just letting the war continue. So he lets it continue. I wish the poor bastards we sent to police the streets of Iraq weighed more heavily in that calculation. But Mr Levin's principles only go so far. Neil

- purcellneil

May 31, 2007 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly. It's a freaking train wreck. I must say, this has been great thread. I don't know how it went from Thompson's height, to Michael Jordan 08, to Vice President WandreyCer campaigning in nothing by stilettos, to Abraham Lincoln huge member, to the Spine, and everything else in between. But it was a lot of fun. Sorry about your hijacked thread, Isaac. I blame Jared Fuckin' Diamond.

- adamvaught

May 31, 2007 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please ignore

- adamvaught

May 31, 2007 at 7:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I might agree with you - but you'd have to have some plausible argument for staying in Iraq. You'd have to convince me that Bush was on the right track, that we have sufficient troops in place and available to carry out your strategy (whatever that is), and that there was some hope of an end-state in Iraq that would be worth dying for. I don't think Levin has any of that. Nobody is offering any of that. All we have is Bush and his half-assed surge. And all Levin has done is give Bush the money he needs to stretch the war to September. Isn't it already clear that Bush is just running out the clock? He intends to hand this turd to his successor - and so in two years we will do what we ought to do now. How does anyone defend letting Bush continue to sacrifice the lives of Americans in Iraq? People insist it will be worse for us if we leave -- what I have never heard anyone present is an argument that staying will produce an outcome we will deem to be worth the cost. I know I would not die for this cause. And I sure as hell wouldn't ask anyone else to. But then I don't have Levin's lovely principles... Neil

- purcellneil

May 31, 2007 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If global warming is a bigger issue than Iraq, why don't we end the war and spend our children's money on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Why continue to spend billions in money we are borrowing against the future in order to help choose which militia gets to impose Shia theocracy on Iraqis? I know we should focus on climate change and just forget about those losers who volunteered and are bleeding for our sins in Iraq, but they're spending the funds we need to do something about those awful emissions. What do you say? Neil

- purcellneil

May 31, 2007 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't believe I wrote that. Febrile mind and fingers banging ahead of the noggin.

- tec619

May 31, 2007 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carl Levin marched in the city of Royal Oak, Michigan, Memorial Day this week. I was there with my family because my son was with the Cub Scouts marching. When Senator Levin marched by with his brother, Sandy Levin, there was a heckler who shouted out at the Senator who was waving the American Flag. "Hey Carl, Shouldn't you be waving a white flag?" As a moderate republican, I was a little amused. But I was overwhelmed by the disappointment at how my Senator was treated while he was marching in support of the armed forces. The Senator turned away from the heckler and conducted himself with dignity and avoided a confrontation with a lesser man. He had the sense to realize a discussion here would serve no purpose. Move On needs to understand what Senator Levin understands. There is a time and a place for everything. They also need to realize the mistakes they make attacking a popular Senator. In my mind Move On is just another heckler screaming at my Senator making an ass of themselves.

- CRS9TNR

May 31, 2007 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

but that doesn't make Levin right. I'm sure that the world would be a better place if people who oppose the war would just shut up and be polite. We'd still be in Vietnam today, but parades would go a lot smoother. Neil

- purcellneil

May 31, 2007 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's obvious that the Dem's are going to lose '08. People are fed up with their wimpiness. The Democratic Party has to be broken to pieces and reformed to a true Liberal party like the GOP reformed the Republican party in the 80's. MoveOn like the Moral Majority is just trying to speed things up.

- Yminale

May 31, 2007 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm surprised no one has come up with the correct analogy. MoveOn is to the left as Club for Growth is to the right. Any victories that either of them have had ultimately became pyrrhic. They have a place at the table, but enforcing ideological purity is exactly the wrong idea.

- Brent

May 31, 2007 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"They have a place at the table, but enforcing ideological purity is exactly the wrong idea." Why? Certainly doesn't hurt the GOP.

- Yminale

May 31, 2007 at 11:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You need look no further than last year's Rhode Island Senate contest. Lincoln Chafee was forced to defend his right flank in a primary. To survive that primary, he was forced to take positions that killed any chance he had in the general election. You can be ideologically pure in safe districts. In any other case, you are playing with fire.

- Brent

May 31, 2007 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You need look no further than last year's Rhode Island Senate contest. Lincoln Chafee was forced to defend his right flank in a primary." Joe Lieberman proved you wrong. He lost the primary but still won the election. Chafee is not a real good example because the GOP would have lost his seat eventually.

- Yminale

May 31, 2007 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is idiotic to attack decent, principled leaders like Levin (or Lieberman) without even trying to understand their position. In 2002, I heard with my own ears Levin say on Meet the Press, "American is not going to be successful in the war against terror as long as Saddam Hussein is still in power." He voted against the timing rather than the principle of the invasion, and it wasn't a simple knee-jerk. Levin, like most smart people, understood then as he understands now that this is not a simple black-and-white issue. We went to Iraq to resolve the fiasco there that had been festering at least since 1990. Most of the serious Democrats who had been dealing with the problem for years voted for the invasion, and lots of others who didn't like Levin know perfectly well it's far more complicated than the cartoon version provided by those who lost the argument in 2002. A huge majority of Americans, reflected by a similar majority of their elected representatives, supported the liberation of Iraq. Those who opposed it have, for the most part, disgraced themselves by undermining the legitimacy of our actions with unprovable assertions about "illegality" and "chickenhawk lies", accompanied by a noisy chorus of "I told you so's" every time someone dies. I think it's reprehensible. Whether you supported the invasion or not, we are in a war we didn't start but must win. Attacking fellow Americans who have honest disagreements with your analysis is not moral, noble, or practical politics.

- Robert Powell

June 1, 2007 at 8:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How, pray tell, does Lieberman help make your point about ideological purity winning races, Yminale? One might argue that he proves precisely the opposite: that strident protests about ideological purity which are divorced from political reality come back to bite the protesters in the ass. Enjoy your splinter party!

- drdannyu

June 1, 2007 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

is that you can elect Democrats in CT as long as they are actually Republicans in disguise. If that is something to celebrate, maybe we should ditch Hillary, Obama and Edwards and let Lieberman have the Presidential nomination. I don't see the Levin discussion or even the Lieberman situation as being about "ideological purity". In fact, there is one issue that was central to the Lieberman story, and one issue that I have with Levin. That issue is Iraq. Iraq is not an issue of ideology -- almost everyone agrees now that the war was a mistake. Had we to do it over, a majority would not support invading Iraq. The question now is pragmatic, not ideological. Given all that has happened, and what is to be reasonably expected, some of us have concluded that it is time to stop the war. That conclusion has life and death consequences and is worth fighting for. Levin's support for continuing the war appears to be based on pragmatism -- since he initially opposed the war (and the case for war is no better now than before). I don't see his position as "ideological". My opposition to Levin is also pragmatic. He chairs the Armed Services Committee and has clout -- his support for the war undermines efforts to bring it to an end. Those of us who are committed to ending the war have to push or pull Levin out of the way. By September, when the funding issue will again come up in Congress, it will be clear that opposition to the war is not about ideology. We'll have people from every demographic slice of America calling for an end to the war: Republicans and Democrats' conservatives, libertarians, and liberals; blue collars and white; red states and blue. What is splintering the party is not the movement to end the war, but the resistance of people who know the war is wrong but refuse to act on that knowledge. Neil

- purcellneil

June 1, 2007 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I understand your points, and don't disagree with most of what you are saying. I think that it is a wasted effort to attempt to defeat Levin, however, though pointed criticisms from the Left might get him to change his votes about future war funding. What I was asking was for clarification from Yminale, who never ceases to amaze me with over-the-top statements that have no actual bearing on reality.

- drdannyu

June 1, 2007 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you can't see the difference between Lieberman and Levin vis-a-vis the war, you're not looking very carefully. Levin opposed the war and he continues to oppose the war. Because he doesn't vote the way you want him to on a particular bill does not indicate a general support for the war. Rather, it indicates a difference with you about the best tactics to end it. THAT's what you don't seem to get and why you think Levin is Lieberman. It's reasonable to argue with his tactics and I'm not necessarily supportive of them either. But the notion that disagreeing with you about tactics is equivalent to supporting the war is exactly what's wrong with moveon et al.

- miceelf

June 1, 2007 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joementum is a neocon and Republican who happens to "caucus" with the democrats. I've explained a dozen times why this is a problem. Once again Joe Lieberman is Republican in all but name.

- Yminale

June 1, 2007 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Whether you supported the invasion or not, we are in a war we didn't start but must win." If you truly believed in winning this war, you would have ditched Bush and Cheney. The fact that you allow these incompetent morons to basically drive this war into the ground proves that you don't care about winning. All the Right wants to do is find a way to blame the Left FOR THEIR FAILURES. It isn't going to work. This time we'll fight back with bullets if we have to.

- Yminale

June 1, 2007 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"All the Right wants to do is find a way to blame the Left FOR THEIR FAILURES. It isn't going to work. This time we'll fight back with bullets if we have to." Calm down, take a deep breath or two. We're all stressed, aggrieved, and angered by the war just as you are, and none of us has the solution to end it. Let the Right take care of itself, we have honest work to do.

- Tgossard

June 1, 2007 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't want to defeat Levin - I just want him to feel enough heat to reconsider his support of the war. And if he provides the money for it, he is supporting the war. Funding the war is the only thing Bush needs from Congress. So in what way does a vote to fund its continuance differ from supporting the war? You say there is some tactical difference I am missing - so I assume you think Levin will not vote to continue the war in September, or at some point in the more distant future. If so, why wait? Where is the tactical advantage in that (aside from partisan politics)? If not, and he intends to provide funding indefinitely, how can that be seen as opposing the war? If he opposes the war, let him vote accordingly. Neil

- purcellneil

June 1, 2007 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can't have rational arguments with irrational people. Everyone knows that the war is lost. The only fight left is to who to blame for the total disaster. Once again the Right is ahead of the game and the Left has to play catch up. As for Levin, what the hell is he waiting for? Another Tet offensive to give him political cover to do what's right. In the end Levin is a coward not cautious. Doing the right thing would require someone to take responsibility and you know be a leader. I guess that's beyond a peon like Levin.

- Yminale

June 1, 2007 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You can't have rational arguments with irrational people." Thank you for providing a handy case in point, Yminale. I realize that Joltin' Joe is a Republican in everything but name. What does that have to do with the effectiveness of MoveOn's tactics? Points like these may not matter much as you gird your loins to storm the Bastille, but for those of us who still hold out hope for electoral means of change, they are of some concern.

- drdannyu

June 1, 2007 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A bill that isn't veto proof simply means a bill won't get passed. So the troops in Iraq won't get funded, period. That's a little different than "voting for the war", for this reason. If there were a reasonable person in the white house, s/he'd say, well, the congress has expressed the will of the people and are withholding money for it, so because we can't fight the war effectively without the money, I'll bring the troops home. The current occupant, on the other hand, will not bring the troops home under any circumstance, unless forced to. And he won't see a defunded army as reason to bring the troops home. He'll just accept the higher cost in terms of casualties, as the price he is paying for "democratic cowardice" or whatever malarky he calls it. If you think our troops being stuck over there until september is a blood sacrifice, you'd be right, but it will be nothing compared to our troops stuck over there until september without supplies. Which is what Bush would do if there were no funding bill. The only solution is a veto-proof funding bill that ends this. The lack of a bill won't end it. It will just make it more bloody. For some reason you guys seem to assume that Bush is such a reasonable guy that if he doesn't get a funding bill he wouldn't put troops lives at risk by keeping there anyway. I have no idea where you get that from.

- miceelf

June 1, 2007 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see how anyone can imagine Bush keeping the troops in Iraq without the funding. It is impossible. There is a reason Congress holds the purse strings - it is to check the power of a President to make war. The founders knew what they were doing, and we ought to employ the means they provided. To fund the war is to support the President's policy in Iraq. Neil

- purcellneil

June 6, 2007 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close