WaPo: Target Boycott Now “orchestrated by liberal-advocacy group MoveOn.org.”
This is what I was worried about when I wrote about MoveOn.org’s involvement in the Target gay-rights controversy. I wrote at The Awl:
“Jumping aboard, MoveOn.org launched a petition calling for 150,000 consumers to commit to a boycott. While welcomed by many, there is reason to be wary of MoveOn.org’s particular involvement. For starters, its statement reads “If we don’t push back hard, this will just be the tip of the iceberg. Other corporations will learn that they can pour money into elections to buy the outcome they want.” It essentially lessens the anti-gay rights part of the Target donation outrage in exchange for a focus on a larger battle about the post-Citizens United campaigning world… one in which MoveOn.org’s side benefits greatly. Some, like me, might use a stronger word than “lamentable” to characterize MoveOn’s failure to even once use the term “gay” in its petition”
Now, right-leaning Washington Post finally picks up on the Target story and what do they print?
”The campaign against Target was orchestrated by liberal-advocacy group MoveOn.org. It included a note on the retailer’s Facebook page that said, ‘Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics.’
‘We made Target the target,’ said Ilyse Hogue, the group’s director of public advocacy. Ms. Hogue said MoveOn and its members plan to gin up bad publicity for any company venturing into political campaigning.”
Congratulations to Ilyse Hogue for walking right into that trap. Extra points for your shitty pun. How do we know Hogue isn’t up to speed? WaPo: “Ms. Hogue said MoveOn.org wouldn’t let up until Target stops ‘meddling in our elections.’” Maybe she should hit the FEC database to see where, as I covered at the Awl, Target’s been meddling for a decade.
It’s strange to see any left-wing group take credit for “orchestrating” anything.
Comment by Ed Kohler — 7. August 2010 @ 09:30
good
Comment by ugg boots sale — 18. August 2010 @ 03:46
Businesses are making campaign contributions? *GASP* Of course they are, but they follow legal channels. If a business owner signs a large check - he makes certain the candidate knows where that money came from. Some call it ‘lobbying’, others say ‘bribe’. Same function, same purpose. “I scratch your back, now you scratch mine.”
If they think it makes the boycott more appealing to others to focus on corporate campaign donations, make your movement happen. Let’s not be naive, we live in the times of ’spin. You want your idea to go over with the mob, it’s got to have the proper focus and wording. (Just like stuffing our laws with pork bellies so you can have better ‘gun control’ - As if!)
Comment by Cristy — 18. August 2010 @ 09:34