Democrats who condemned MoveOn took its cash

[Pabster]

Story here.

Oh chee, what a surprise. The left is caught in its usual hypocrisy.

I've already said the Democratic Party doesn't exist anymore. It's called MoveOn.org.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Topic Title: Democrats who condemned MoveOn took its cash
Topic Summary: 44 Congressional Dems accepted nearly $4 million...

Story here.

Oh chee, what a surprise. The left is caught in its usual hypocrisy.

I've already said the Democratic Party doesn't exist anymore. It's called MoveOn.org.

Oh gee, they've learned well from the Republicans.

Awesome job Dems :thumbsup:

 

[senseamp]

What's wrong with that cash? I don't agree with everything my company does, I still cash their checks.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Oh chee, what a surprise. The left is caught in its usual hypocrisy.

I've already said the Democratic Party doesn't exist anymore. It's called MoveOn.org.

Since when is the political world 100% black and white? Disapproving of one particular action taken by a group or individual does not mean you can't generally support them or their point of view. I imagine even the most ardent Bush supporters voted for him in 2004 even though they disagreed with at least one of his positions on something, does that make them hypocrites? And even if taking money and support from a group was tacit approval of every single thing the group says or does, how many of those Democrats have taken money from MoveOn.org SINCE the ad?

Face it, the MoveOn.org ad flap is a cheap political trick by conservatives to try and throw some poo at the Democrats, but it's a pretty bad attempt. Not only isn't it clear just what the hell the outrage is directed at, it's being pretty poorly executed, and it's starting to look like the RIGHTIES are the ones who care about the politics of the war to an absurdly large extent. It was one ad published by a well known anti-war group that most people didn't even see, and the right has turned it into an absolute circus. I suppose fighting the Democrats is easier than actually fighting the war.

 

[Pabster]

Try reading the article, Rainsford. It says 17 were identified as accepting donations AFTER condemning that particular MoveOn.org ad.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Try reading the article, Rainsford. It says 17 were identified as accepting donations AFTER condemning that particular MoveOn.org ad.

It really doesn't. Try reading it more closely. If you find a passage saying that, feel free to post it.

But that's really beside the point, it's not hypocrisy even if it was true. Politics isn't black and white, it's possible to support the general goals of an organization while disagreeing with some of it's actions. That seems like a pretty basic point to me, which I'm sure you guys all get but are conveniently ignoring...see my point about the politics being easier than the war.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Try reading the article, Rainsford. It says 17 were identified as accepting donations AFTER condemning that particular MoveOn.org ad.

Maybe you should read your source properly.
Those members of congress accepted the donations BEFORE the MoveOn ad debacle, not after.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Pabster
Try reading the article, Rainsford. It says 17 were identified as accepting donations AFTER condemning that particular MoveOn.org ad.

Maybe you should read your source properly.
Those members of congress accepted the donations BEFORE the MoveOn ad debacle, not after.

And it's irrelevant whether they accepted it before or after. Unfortunately you can't get banned here for inane partisan hackery.

 

[Hacp]

How is this news? I don't agree with George Bush on a lot of things, but if he decides to give me 5 thousand dollars, I'll take it.

 

[wiin]

It is only hypocrisy if these were republicans. For democ-rats, this is business as usual.

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster
Try reading the article, Rainsford. It says 17 were identified as accepting donations AFTER condemning that particular MoveOn.org ad.

It really doesn't. Try reading it more closely. If you find a passage saying that, feel free to post it.

But that's really beside the point, it's not hypocrisy even if it was true. Politics isn't black and white, it's possible to support the general goals of an organization while disagreeing with some of it's actions. That seems like a pretty basic point to me, which I'm sure you guys all get but are conveniently ignoring...see my point about the politics being easier than the war.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hacp
How is this news? I don't agree with George Bush on a lot of things, but if he decides to give me 5 thousand dollars, I'll take it.

I don't want any money from Bush.

When you have a fundamental difference with a donor, you should not accept their donation, generally.

On the other hand, when you are largely aligned with a donor but disagree with some particular thing they do that doesn't change the basic agreement, it's another matter.

Dems largely agree with Moveon, IMO.

That's why they call them 'wedge issues', the right was looking for a way to split the demos from Moveon. Doesn't mean they still don't mostly agree, with donations just fine.

Should the repubs who recently sided with dems against the White House on the expanded child health care have to stop taking GOP donations?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Should the repubs who recently sided with dems against the White House on the expanded child health care have to stop taking GOP donations?

That's an unfair comparison. If, hypothetically, there were a MoveOn-style group donating to Republicans, which promoted a health care agenda, and they voted against it, while accepting the $$$, you'd have a point. But there isn't...

You can't ask either party to quit taking $$$ from the party coffers. Outside groups and PACs and lobbyists are another story.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Should the repubs who recently sided with dems against the White House on the expanded child health care have to stop taking GOP donations?

That's an unfair comparison. If, hypothetically, there were a MoveOn-style group donating to Republicans, which promoted a health care agenda, and they voted against it, while accepting the $$$, you'd have a point. But there isn't...

You can't ask either party to quit taking $$$ from the party coffers. Outside groups and PACs and lobbyists are another story.

Yes, I wasn't actually arguing that they should stop taking party donations, I was showing how the 'disagree on one issue, no donations allowed' standard doesn't make sense.

Your analogy is with one-issue groups; Moveon is not a one-issue group.

 

[StageLeft]

Maybe later in the article, but during the first half it indicates money received prior to the event, which means this is a non-issue and a waste of time discussing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pabster
Topic Title: Democrats who condemned MoveOn took its cash
Topic Summary: 44 Congressional Dems accepted nearly $4 million...

Story here.

Oh chee, what a surprise. The left is caught in its usual hypocrisy.

I've already said the Democratic Party doesn't exist anymore. It's called MoveOn.org.

Oh gee, they've learned well from the Republicans.

Awesome job Dems :thumbsup:

Glad you can admit your heroes arent real bright. Or original.