Rolling Stone takes it on

In the midst of all the cheerleading for the democrats, Rolling Stone magazine is a lone voice, exposing manipulations that have helped to silence the anti-war movement in the Democratic party.

Matt Taibbi shows how the incestuous relationship between political consultants and the so-called anti-war movement, has all but silenced any serious attempt to end the war sooner, rather than later:

What the Post and the Times failed to note is that much of the anti-war group's leadership hails from a consulting firm called Hildebrand Tewes — whose partners, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes, served as staffers for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). In addition, these anti-war leaders continue to consult for many of the same U.S. senators whom they need to pressure in order to end the war. This is the kind of conflict of interest that would normally be an embarrassment in the activist community.

Worst of all is the case of Woodhouse, who came to Hildebrand Tewes after years of working as the chief mouthpiece for the DSCC, where he campaigned actively to re-elect Democratic senators who supported the Iraq War in the first place. Anyone bothering to look — and clearly the Post and the Times did not before penning their ardent bios of Woodhouse — would have found the youthful idealist bragging to newspapers before the Iraq invasion about the pro-war credentials of North Carolina candidate Erskine Bowles. "No one has been stronger in this race in supporting President Bush in the War on Terror and his efforts to effect a regime change in Iraq," boasted the future "anti-war" activist Woodhouse.

With guys like this in charge of the anti-war movement, much of what has passed for peace activism in the past year was little more than a thinly veiled scheme to use popular discontent over the war to unseat vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008. David Sirota, a former congressional staffer whose new book, The Uprising, excoriates the Democrats for their failure to end the war, expresses disgust at the strategy of targeting only Republicans. "The whole idea is based on this insane fiction that there is no such thing as a pro-war Democrat," he says. "Their strategy allows Democrats to take credit for being against the war without doing anything to stop it. It's crazy."

Taibbi skewers Reid and Pelosi as well, but go read the article for yourself, and judge for yourself. I think though, we should all be asking ourselves why we have allowed ending this war to be taken off of the front burner, during this important election year.

•  don't tip me, wait for him

  thanks for the lead, I don't read Rolling Stone much

  And I'm so pissed about the war I'd like the nomination settled so we can make more noise

  especially if McCain is the nominee

  by jhpdb on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:16:23 AM PDT

•  Great article

  Matt Taibbi is, hands down, the best political writer out there today.

  by Scott in NAZ on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:45:19 AM PDT

•  A Big Issue ...

  and one that is relevant to this blog. What should be the priority, electing Democrats or taking principled stands on behalf of the electorate?

  by John Driscoll on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:09:39 AM PDT

  •  I can see both sides of this.

    On the one hand, of course we want principled stands. Without principle, what are we?

    On the other hand, if we focus merely on principled stands, and don't recognize that not everyone sees things the way we do and that we need to reach out to them as well, we'll just lose elections. So we want to push for members of our party to be elected, then we can influence them with our pleas for principle afterward.

    But also, on principle, there's a danger of groupthink. We have to keep our principled stands informed by empirical evidence.

    So it's a bit tougher than it seems at first, maybe.

    by Shaviv on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:18:11 AM PDT

    •  Afterward ...

      The point of the Taibbi piece, however, is that "afterward" is too late to influence people, especially the way that Reid and Pelosi operate.

      by John Driscoll on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:24:41 AM PDT

      •  There's that other part, yeah

        that sometimes you can't wait, and sometimes you just can't budge people. Good point on his/your part.

        I find it odd that RS seems to vary so wildly in the quality of the writing in it - Taibbi is really quite good, other writers - whose names escape me at the moment, and I haven't gotten RS for several months now - are not so good.

        by Shaviv on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:27:24 AM PDT

    •  I am completely convinced that

      the reason a lot of people don't see things the way we do is that they've been completely hoodwinked by Republican misinformation and propaganda.

      Had we be better at taking principled stands from the beginning and doing so in a way that completely exposed the right-wing lies for what they were, we really wouldn't be having this conversation. The country would be constantly leaning left with the righties trying to pull it there way in vain rather then the other way around.

      So unless we take principled stands and defend them with the passion they deserve then we're merely playing into the right's hands. That is allowing them to control the dialog on any given issue.

      Just getting people elected can't be the driving force.

      by Pescadero Bill on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:32:54 AM PDT

      •  But if you've been hoodwinked...

        ...and have internalized what you've heard, then can you be reached?

        This is apart from "values voters" who care about things like abortion, affirmative action, torture, same-sex marriage, etc. because they honestly and unshakably believe that gays and abortion are terrible, affirmative action is racist and torture should be an interrogation procedure of last resort.

        Let's just look at economic policy, because that's a place where scientific positivism can play a role - right? From my understanding, most right-wing economic positions are fundamentally based on trickle-down theory, but are rationally based on it; trickle-down theory is wrong, but it makes rational sense if you don't check the facts. (This is in contrast to anything involving divine revelation, which is not subject to logic at all.)

        If someone wholly and truly believes that trickle-down theory is right, if he doesn't have time for economic analyses, how are you going to convince him?

        I feel like growing up in a religious community has helped me relate to the values voters, because I understand their framing and I can speak to it - for example, what good is a choice made at gunpoint? Is it better to end one life and save another than allow both to be lost? Are we not commanded by the Bible to speak up for the dumb and preach justice for the condemned? And so on. I'm not going to convince anyone, but at least I can set a foot on their playing field. But it seems to me that the economic voters who tend toward Republicans are unreachable.

        How can we deal with that?

        by Shaviv on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:55:23 AM PDT

        •  I think it can be found

          in the speeches of JFK and MLK and I think Obama is touching on it and getting better at it.

          I think it comes down to expressing passionately and eloquently what you believe in and then convincing people you truly have their interests at heart. Not unlike what many a southern preacher does.

          That said, unfortunately I think it's going to come down to a collapsing economy before there's a large enough ground swell of people willing to shut out the lies and open up to the truth. Talk about deflating the pixie dust economic theory of trickle down - when there's little left to trickle down true positive change will come.

          When people get too comfortable they tend to get sloppy and lazy and willing to listen to whatever lies promote their continued comfort level. Facts be damned.

          Until that time all I can offer is to challenge the propaganda and lies and do it with eloquent passion. More and more people will be willing to listen going forward.

          One thing we can't do is to go along with their dialog of bull in an effort to get people elected. We'll eventually start to believe it or be surrounded by people who believe it and eventually morph the Democratic Party into a wing of the Republican Party.

          I just hope it's not too late.

          by Pescadero Bill on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:32:55 PM PDT

        •  It's been my experience...

          that finding at least one common ground that you walk on with that person, and building from there, is the way to go. Don't focus on your differences, focus on your similarities, and work from there.

          by scorpiorising on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:48:21 PM PDT

    •  Also, as we get more Dems in

      along with the better ones, it will be easier to get them to move leftwards than center-right.

      I am an Edwards Democrat!

      by Scubaval on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:34:58 AM PDT

•  I don't know how some people

  can stand to play games literally with people's lives.

  This is a good and important article to help show the depth of callousness political animals sink to while they play there little games and why real change is so hard short of out-right revolution to put the fear in them.

  Thanks scorpiorising.

  by Pescadero Bill on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:22:18 AM PDT

•  Dem inaction on Iraq=hillary.

  the last things she needs before the voting public are more attention to 1. her iraq vote/standing by it, 2. impeachment, vis-a-vis her hubbie.

  Wake up folks!  why do you think hillary bought up half of Reid and Pelosi's caucuses beneath them w/ her HILLPAC?

  by Zacapoet on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM PDT

•  I wish someone would.....

  unearth the reasons for the relative silence of Obama and Clinton on New Orleans and Katrina. I mean, last Thursday Obama did appear at Tulane where he spoke on Katrina, the levees, the ACOE, etc., and Bill Clinton (which wasn't the same as Hillary's going there would have been) made several atops in Louisiana before her primary. But those exceptions were because they were stumping for votes.

  New Orleans and Katrina need to be spoken about as major national issues in places like Texas and Ohio, not just treated as only regional issues or old news. Because they still have a major impact today.

  by Louisiana 1976 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:23 AM PDT