Why the Democrats won't denounce Moveon.org

If you had been wondering why none of the Democratic candidates for president had seized the opportunity to denounce Moveon.org's attack on the commander of forces in Iraq, this statistic may make things clear.

Here's a pop quiz on money in politics: Who gives more money to federal candidates, the National Rifle Association or MoveOn.org?

Answer: MoveOn.

And it isn't even close.

In the last two election cycles, MoveOn.org Political Action Committee spent more than $58 million in pro-Democrat political advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission records.

In just the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn.org spent $27 million in advocacy to elect a Democratic majority in Congress and used its formidable fund-raising clout to propel numerous Democratic challengers to House and Senate victories. By comparison, the NRA PAC donated $11 million in 2006.

"They give away and raise about three times as much as the National Rifle Association," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "A tremendous amount of money, especially when you consider how quickly they came on the scene."

That's really amazing for an organization that didn't exist nine years ago. And the liberal bloggers have laid down the law that they will not brook any criticism. James Taranto points to this response from Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake as she rebuked Elizabeth Edwards' rather mild rebuke for the Moveon ad.

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

Elizabeth Edwards spoke in an interview after a Des Moines campaign appearance. She noted that her father was a career naval officer, and she grew up on Navy bases, so she said she respects military service.

....“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

Elizabeth Edwards spoke in an interview after a Des Moines campaign appearance. She noted that her father was a career naval officer, and she grew up on Navy bases, so she said she respects military service.

Well, Jane Hamsher is not going to take that from Elizabeth Edwards despite Hamsher's brief stint being employed as a blogger for the Edwards campaign. Perhaps, there is some lingering bitterness of the way Edwards handled that whole story. Taranto quotes her response.

So here's the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don't. Do. It. . . .

When offered the opportunity to cudgel your own side, you pivot and attack. How about, "glad you mentioned that. . .I think an ad is about as relevant to George Bush's growing collection of toe tags as a haircut is to the problems facing this country." Or, "thanks for the opportunity to discuss this, Chris. I personally would not choose the word "betrayal" to characterize General Petraeus's lack of judgment or skewing of the facts to perpetuate the war, but I do think we should be looking at the fact that this was the bloodiest summer ever in Iraq and asking ourselves if the assessment we're being given about the situation is realistic. . ."

There are any number of ways you can answer that question well and none of them involve attacking MoveOn. They're out there on the left so you can look "moderate." They're saying what needs to be said, opening the conversation up so John Edwards isn't considered the left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to.

There you have it - from one of their own top bloggers, Moveon is out there so that the Democratic politicians can pretend to look moderate. They're the "left-wing fringe loon that nobody should listen to."

Done.