Over The Top!

Yesterday on his nationally syndicated talk radio show, Hugh Hewitt compared the efforts of MoveOn.org to pressure Democrats in Congress to push forward on censuring President Bush to Soviet commissars driving troops toward the German guns with the threat of shooting anyone who refused to charge ahead.

Today, Jonathan Gurwitz examines (WSJ-subscription required) the attempt by left-wing bloggers and political action groups (including MoveOn.org) to defeat moderate Democrat Henry Cuellar in a recent primary:

The campaign was long on sentiment but short on funds. By the end of December, Mr. Rodriguez had raised only $170,000 to Mr. Cuellar's $655,000. Then, in January, the conservative Club for Growth endorsed Mr. Cuellar, its first ever Democratic endorsement. And as President Bush entered the House chamber for the State of the Union address, cameras captured his hearty embrace of Mr. Cuellar. The endorsement and the image were widely disseminated, igniting a nationwide liberal campaign to defeat Mr. Cuellar. Influential bloggers Markos "Kos" Moulitsas and Duncan "Atrios" Black led the charge, joined by kindred Web sites. As much as $500,000 poured into Mr. Rodriguez's coffers during the final six weeks of electioneering. Liberals touted the effort as the ultimate mobilization of the "netroots" -- the indomitable synthesis of grassroots organization with digital potency.

In the March 7 primary, Mr. Cuellar won with 53% of the vote to Mr. Rodriguez's 41% (a third candidate taking the rest). He increased his margin of victory over Mr. Rodriguez in 2004 in 10 out of 11 counties, besting his principal opponent by nearly 5,600 votes -- despite the efforts of the netroots activists. "A lot of energy and money was wasted in the Democratic primary that could have been used to defeat Republicans in November," says Colin Strother, a general consultant for Mr. Cuellar's campaign. "The netroots people took their eyes off the ball -- taking the House back from the Republicans," he says. "They only knew one picture . . . They knew nothing about the district."

Blogger Moulitsas is unapologetic. "So we didn't kill off Cuellar," he wrote on his blog, "but we gave him an [blank] whooping where none was expected and made him sweat. That's the reason why Lieberman is sweating in Connecticut," referring to another netroots challenge against another centrist Democrat.

Gurwitz finds parallels to the futility of World War I trench warfare:

So far, threats like these seem the best the Angry Left can muster. They now have a disastrous 0-17 record stretching back to 2004. The netroots leaders resemble nothing so much as World War I commanders, who after each successive setback maintained that victory was tantalizingly close, and lobbed more artillery shells and threw more troops over the top. Similarly among the netroots, the article of faith is that victory is only a matter of trying harder, upping the rhetoric and raising more money.

This is exactly the pattern that I've noticed with MoveOn.org over the last few years. It's a seemingly endless loop of failure that they keep repeating over and over again:

1. Fire up your base with the latest "outrage" of the day

2. Channel their anger into supporting a candidate or position that is going to be voted on

3. Pull out all the stops to get your base to donate money, volunteer, turn out, hold rallies, meet-ups, etc.

4. Wake up that day after the election or vote to be shocked to find that, once again, you have lost

5. Wallow in pity and try to console yourself for a few days

6. Announce that this is a "wake-up call" and that you have regrouped and are now more energized than ever

7. Repeat step 1

After major defeats, such as the 2002 and 2004 elections, Alito getting on the Supreme Court, etc. there may also be an additional step between 5 and 6. This is when they pause, reflect, and reconsider their strategy for the future. MoveOn.org just went through this step last month.

The problem is that when they do pause and ask themselves why they lost and what they need to do win next time around, most of the feedback and input they get comes from the more extreme members of the group. They usually blame their defeats on having been too moderate and not having done enough.

So they propose becoming more radical, having more vigils and meet-ups, getting more people to sign petitions, walking more neighborhoods, sending more e-mails to Congress, and donating more money to the cause. As Gurwitz notes, they believe that with just a little more they'll finally be able to break through. But by becoming more radical and more activist, they drift further away from the mainstream voters whose support they need if they ever have any hope of winning political victories.

In some respects you have to admire their tenacity. But at some point, you also have to question their mental health. As Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "