matt - i see that people who's good will and intelligence i have no reason to doubt, have their reasons to support the house supplemental bill that passed on friday.
i don't support that bill (i think it was both stupid and immoral), but i do support people (like chris and david sirota) who see it differently than i do (and i hope like heck they are right and i am wrong).
but what moveon did is something else. they conducted a push poll... that looked like it was designed to manipulate the membership.
after many years of support i cancelled my membership - not because of the outcome of moveon's poll - but because of how it was done.
whoever at moveon wrote that poll and decided to sent it to the membership owes us an apology.
Utter hogwash. First of all, a push poll is not even a poll, so to call an actual poll a "push poll" suggests that one doesn't quite understand what they are.
What I assume is meant is that the poll was misleading, apparently because it did not include an alternative in the form of the Barbara Lee amendment.
Folks, there WAS NO LEE AMENDMENT. She did not offer it in committee, because she knew it would not pass. However, she did use the threat of the bill and her own influence to force Pelosi to keep timelines in the majority bill in the first place.
The text in the poll is completely fair, as far as I'm concerned:
"As early as Wednesday, the House may vote on a Democratic proposal on Iraq. The proposal was put together by Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Obey and Murtha. It is going to be a close vote--the Republicans are against it and some conservative Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill.
Most, but not all, of the progressives in Congress are planning on voting for the bill. These progressives, like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war. And President Bush is threatening to veto it for the same reason.
I've told Rep. Murtha that this was a decision for MoveOn's members to make. Now I'm asking you to help make it. Should we support or oppose the Democrats' plan?"
The only bill on the table was this one. The text notes that most anti-war progressives in the House planned to vote for it. That may have been a bit of a fudge, depending on your view of who the progressives are--perhaps at the time it was written, maybe only half were on board. But of course in the end, it was true. And it's clearly spelled out WHY some may not have voted for it--because it didn't go far enough.
Who in MoveOn can't parse that? The bill was a middle of the road bill, that conservative Dems thought went too far and progressive Dems think didn't go far enough. In that context, do YOU favor the bill in the end, was the question. How is that not fair?
Look, I don't think it's a great bill either. But it does take a step forward, whereas a bill that would not have passed, would not. Let's take the next step that even MoveOn favors, as they noted in the results. But let's take the step as it comes.
my complaint was not specifically about the absence of the lee amendment - if that is how you read my comment, you are mistaken.
imo, the language was slanted to encourage members to support the bill. "the language is obviously slanted toward people voting in favor" (this from chris bowers who has some experience in polling).
here are a couple of definitions of push polling (here, and here). if you have another definition, please let me know - i would be happy to be better informed. that is why i specifically asked chris if this was not a push poll - and he did not tell me i was wrong. maybe i am - if that is the case, then make an argument other than shouting "hogwash".
now, it is quite possible that the outcome of the poll would have been similar if it had not been slanted (i think chris make that argument) - and if that is what had happened, i would still be a member. but it didn't - because there wasn't a poll to solicite opinion, there was a poll that served to shape opinion.
arguing that the outcome of the poll was the "correct" outcome COMPLETELY ignores the complaint i did make.
....
here is the text (in full) of the moveon poll:
Dear MoveOn member,
We've got a big decision coming up this week, and we need to make it together, as a community.
As early as Wednesday, the House may vote on a Democratic proposal on Iraq. The proposal was put together by Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Obey and Murtha. It is going to be a close vote--the Republicans are against it and some conservative Democrats are uncomfortable with the bill.
I've told Rep. Murtha that this was a decision for MoveOn's members to make. Now I'm asking you to help make it. Should we support or oppose the Democrats' plan? Just click here to register your view:
Support the Plan.
Not Sure
Oppose the Plan
A push poll is a tool used to fool voters, not a data gathering technique. You do push polls to spread misinformation. An organization calling undecided voters and asking 'Would you support candidate A if you knew that he beat his wife' while posing as a research outfit is engaging in push polling.
Moveon might have phrased its question poorly, but it was not a push poll.
you don't think that anyone was encouraged to support the bill by the wording in moveon's poll?
I didn't make an argument on that one way or another. I honestly don't know.
What I will say is that the choice presented in the bill is the same presented to members of Congress.
none of us know for a fact (unless there is some data on different wordings).
it does look awfully slanted to me... (and my objection is not so much to the choice offered - but how those choices were described). do you, at least, see how it looks slanted (even if you don't know)?
i don't think it is unreasonable to see this as a slanted poll. after all, i am not alone in thinking the poll was slanted (even chris agrees).
that is my objection.
from a comment i wrote over at hullabaloo (where a similar conversation is going on):
maybe the poll was written in haste, without thinking it through and seeing how slanted it was... it doesn't take bad motives. maybe it was a mistake - in which case there should be an apology. that would be fine, i'd happily ask to have my membership reinstated.
but if moveon, or other people/organizations think it is ok to manipulate members (even if inadvertently done) to get the desired outcome, that is NOT ok with me. that is NOT an organization i am going to support.
complaining about it, withdrawing my support - this is all about accountability. something i'd like to think we have.
it is march 2007. not after the primary and before the general election. this is our best time to hold our politicians and our institutions (conservative or progressive) accountable.
No, I don't. This choice was what faced members of Congress. I see bias in this question, as there's always bias. But I don't see malice. This is good data, and 140,000 people or so participated in the vote.
We should stop pretending they are stupid.
First, I want to say that I respect Matt, Chris, and David Sirota and your position and I hope that you are right. I am wary of the way this turned out because it seemed that progressives are always forced to go along with the militarists instead of us pushing the militarists to compromise with us. I hope my caution is unwarranted. Anyway, that said:
You are right that the MoveOn question was the same one that Congress faced, but we are not in Congress. We are outsiders.
I would have preferred that MoveOn would have asked us: Do you think we should lobby progressive members of Congress to vote for this bill? Do you think we should lobby Republicans and conservative Democrats to vote for this bill or should we lobby them to cut off all funding for the war?
I would guess that most MoveOn members would say that we should lobby Repubicans and consevative Democrats to cut off all funding and hope that they would see the Pelosi bill as a compromise. And MoveOn members might say we should lobby progressives to vote against the bill to ensure that the bill stayed strong and is not watered down even further. These particular strategies might have been better than just blindly supporting the Pelosi bill.
It was this lack of other ways of going about this that bothered me. I felt like MoveOn was being led down the primrose path by the militarists as we often are. It wasn't until I read David Sirota's article that I really understood the strategy and how it might work.
In general, I really like the work that MoveOn does. I think they are very savvy and have done some great work. But I also think they have made some mistakes. When I saw this poll, I was very frustrated with it and how little it explained the strategy. In the past, MoveOn often wrote very detailed messages with lots of footnotes -- the messages educated their membership and got buyin. This message was not at all infomative and felt more manipulative to me. I would have preferred an explanation and no poll to what we got from MoveOn this time.
There is not one shred of dishonesty in that question. He presented the choice as he saw it. Turns out, it worked out just that way: a close vote. You would rather have had the Lee amendment, which would have died an immediate, pointless and embrassing death? How much of a loser would the Dems seem to be then?
Tell you what, I'm not voting for you for Speaker. A speaker that organized the party that way would be headed for the exits very fast.
Yes, I would rather have had, "Immediate withdrawal, no more money for anything but redeployment, and oh, by the way, Bush is impeached." But I'd like to be married to Shakira, too. Ain't gonna happen.
