Why can't MoveOn or other liberal groups put marches together?

[Zuni]

I am sure MoveOn has the resources and ability to promote anti-Bush, anti-war rallies without ANSWER

UFPJ has been a major partner in these rallies. Apparently they do not get along with ANSWER. Why can't they put together a rally without ANSWER?

[Atman]

1. First of all, we can't plan another mega-march THAT quickly

We also don't want "march fatigue." But don't worry...there are plans. Shhhhh. Don't tell the freepers!

Oh, and it's all about "perception management," as symbolman so aptly called it. MoveOn.org is the Michael Moore of the internet world. The right would spend the whole time cracking about those looney nut-bag from MoveOn, and show the old Hitler commercial that never actually ran, but that was attributed to MoveOn. No, we need to start PURE.

GRASSROOTS. Or at least, present the perception of it being grassroots. Which, when you actually consider this rag-tag group on DU, it really would be. Perception is reality. That cannot be stressed enough. We need purity of message, not some other organization's old baggage to be used against us as a group.

[electricray]

2. I think the march rocked, but...

large demonstrations are very polarizing right now. We have just begun to catch the swing of the pendulum. Public opinion is on the side of true American values now, so far more effective than any march would be if every one of the people in the streets of Washington on the 24th would simply drop their acceptance of those who hypocritically defend this monstrosity of an administration.

Granted many people are doing a lot and liberals everywhere are truly feeling thier oats right now, but angry marching hippies make poor conversationalists. I don't mean to offend angry marching hippies because you are my people, but true activism leads to the opportunity to open a wider dialogue. Polls show me that that wider dialogue may be here.

[mike_c]

3. frankly, I think it is because neither MoveOn or others...

...really wants to confront the ugly political truth of the Iraq war: that many democratic legislators have supported the war and continue to support it. MoveOn is closely allied with the Democratic Party, but the party leadership does not want an antiwar stance-- witness the absolute prohibition of any antiwar expressions at the national convention. Also, as much as many would like the antiwar movement to exist in a vacuum, it doesn't, and a RATIONAL antiwar movement must eventually recognize that any solution to the occupation of Iraq also brings up wider foreign policy and social justice issues. Again, MoveOn's alliance with the mainstream democratic party would be mightily strained by a public airing of those larger issues, because dems will be caught with their pants down, big time.

I think the ultimate answer is that MoveOn has mainstream political aspirations, in particular, it wants to influence national electoral politics. I would LOVE to see them take a leading role in the antiwar movement, but I think they feel that such a role might undermine their broader political aspirations, and I think they might have a point. Lots of dems have blood on their hands-- I suspect MoveOn doesn't want to be in the business of pointing that out.

[bemildred]

4. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

It was a great march.
Who the hired help was doesn't mean shit to me.