Vote to Condemn MoveOn Splits California's DC Democrats in Half

wow (8.00 / 3)

I think this is the most tags I've ever used, but this is one of those votes that deserves to end up in everyone's archives.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:30:41 PM UTC

Wow! (6.00 / 2)

I didn't realize McNerney was a yea.  What a wuss.  No more money from me, Jerry.  Get a friggin spine.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:49:06 PM UTC

Yeah (8.00 / 1)

this one is not going to help matters with regards to Jerry.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:06:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please Take McNerney Off The Act Blue Page (0.00 / 0)

I really hope that in the upcoming nomination process for the Calitics Act Blue Page, McNerney is removed.  Although there is no excuse for him to vote this way, the people who supported him as an anti-war candidate deserve an explanation what the heck he was thinking. 

What, exactly, were you condemning, Jerry?  Is there anything in the ad that was untrue?  Do you have a problem with the First Amendment?  Or did you just sell out to the Republican noise machine?

---

by: Be_Devine @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:26:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Because the Republican candidate (Andal, Houston, Buck, Nakanishi, etc...) is better?  That makes no sense.  If you want to attack someone for this vote, start with the Democrats who represent extremely, extremely liberal Democratic districts.

How about these folks who all voted Yea?

Laura Richardson (CA-37) - D+27
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) - D+23
Tom Lantos (CA-12) - D+22
Grace Napolitano (CA-38) - D+20
Anna Eshoo (CA-14) - D+18
Sam Farr (CA-17) - D+17
Joe Baca (CA-43) - D+13
Susan Davis (CA-53) - D+12
Adam Schiff (CA-29) - D+12
Jane Harman (CA-36) - D+11
Mike Thompson (CA-1) - D+10
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) - D+9

---

by: ortcutt @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:37:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

one question (6.50 / 2)

Just for the sake of argument, who on that list was backed by the internet to make it to congress?

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:49:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uhh, why does that matter? (0.00 / 0)

I wish people would just make up their minds whether they want to win seats from Republicans or not.  If you don't want to keep CA-11, then don't support McNerney.

---

by: ortcutt @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:30:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

None (0.00 / 0)

That I can see.  I don't know when Susan Davis was elected, but all the others predate any substantial use of internet for politics and fundraising.

---

by: slowpitch @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:09:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because (5.00 / 1)

Because, unlike McNerney, I didn't give money and time to any of those other congresspeople.  Because, unlike McNerney, I didn't walk precincts desperately trying to get people to vote for those congresspeople based, in large part, on their anti-war stance.

I think all those other Dem's are spineless wusses who should be challenged in the primary.

The Mayor of San Diego proved last week that even a Republican can look into his heart and do what he knows is right even when its not politically expedient.  I would expect nothing less of McNerney or any of those others who voted yea.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:15:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

Then just let the Republicans have CA-11 back.  If that's what you really want, you're free to do so.

---

by: ortcutt @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 19:31:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

this might be the first time I've ever been aware of totally agreeing with you, ortcutt.

This is an incredibly stupid hill to die on, IMO.

---

by: spit @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 21:35:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sam Farr? Wow. (8.00 / 1)

Didn't expect to see that one there. He (or his office, at least) is going to get an earful from me.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 23:52:54 PM UTC

Yeas and Nays Ordered by PVI (5.00 / 1)

Yea

Laura Richardson (CA-37) - D+27
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) - D+23
Tom Lantos (CA-12) - D+22
Grace Napolitano (CA-38) - D+20
Anna Eshoo (CA-14) - D+18
Sam Farr (CA-17) - D+17
Joe Baca (CA-43) - D+13
Susan Davis (CA-53) - D+12
Adam Schiff (CA-29) - D+12
Jane Harman (CA-36) - D+11
Mike Thompson (CA-1) - D+10
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) - D+9
Jim Costa (CA-20) - D+5
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) - D+5
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18) - D+3
Jerry McNerney (CA-11) - R+3

Nay

Barbara Lee (CA-9) - D+38
Diane Watson (CA-33) - D+36
Maxine Waters (CA-35) - D+33
Xavier Becerra (CA-31) - D+30
Howard Berman (CA-28) - D+25
Pete Stark (CA-13) - D+22
Lynn Woolsey (CA-6) - D+21
Henry Waxman (CA-30) - D+20
George Miller (CA-7) - D+19
Hilda Solis (CA-32) - D+17
Zoe Lofgren (CA-16) - D+16
Mike Honda (CA-15) - D+14
Doris Matsui (CA-5) - D+14
Linda Sanchez (CA-39) - D+13
Brad Sherman (CA-27) - D+13
Lois Capps (CA-23) - D+9
Bob Filner (CA-51) - D+7

I'm willing to understand votes of Costa (D+5), Loretta Sanchez (D+5), Cardoza (D+3), and McNerney (R+3) given their precarious positions but what exactly is the excuse of Richardson (D+27), Roybal-Allard (D+23), Lantos (D+22), and Napolitano (D+20)?  Do they think that they are representing the will of the voters in their districts?  What are we getting out of their packed Democratic districts if we can't  get any progressive votes from them?

---

by: ortcutt @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:21:45 AM UTC

Considering (0.00 / 0)

That Laura Richardson ran one of the ugliest primaries I've seen in California in a long time, openly playing to racial bias, I'm not shocked in the least.

---

by: David Dayen @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 00:51:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Richardson (0.00 / 0)

Well, given that Richardson has been in Congress for about 2 weeks, she may not have quite worked out when to buck a large majority vote. Not an excuse, but a possible explanation.

---

by: slowpitch @ Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 17:11:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's the principle of the thing (8.00 / 2)

The Republicans put out their "MoveOn is a radical fringe group" bait, and the Democrats bit. That's what bugs the hell out of me. They're trying to marginalize Democrats, and strangely enough, Democrats are more than willing to help. Why can't they even unite against something as weak as this?

I think the only purposes of this whole thing was to distract from what Petraeus actually said, and make Democrats look unpatriotic. You KNOW that MoveOn will now be the poster child for the Treasonous Left throughout this election cycle now.

So now the 3 million, mostly moderate, Democratic-oriented members of MoveOn have been tarred as anti-military and anti-troops, and the potential beneficiaries of MoveOn's power, influence and money are the ones who helped to throw them under that bus.

I'm not insulted. I'm angry at the ignorance and stupidity of it.

---

by: tface1000 @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:09:53 AM UTC

Who and What is MoveOn (0.00 / 0)

Call me ignorant if you must, but why would MoveOn be condemned?  What have tehy done?  Have I missed it in the above article and comments?

And, what does MoveOn do?  Who are tehy?

I'd like to think I am informed on stuff that matters.  Does MoveOn matter?

---

by: bmfarley @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:01:45 AM UTC

MoveOn (0.00 / 0)

Was an org started during the Clinton impeachment to tell Congress to Move On to other business. It's now got about 3 million members, making it one of the largest progressive orgs.

On this specific incident, see my diary and Lucas's diary for more information.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 13:18:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

TWO measures, not one! (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget there were two measures condemning the MoveOn ad.  Boxer sponsored (and voted for) the second one, as did Clinton, etc.  This one condemned MoveOn and the Swiftboat ad, never mind that the two weren't even the same thing.

---

by: PeanutButter @ Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 18:21:31 PM UTC