Frank Rich: "left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling"

[beaconess]

"Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. "General Betray-Us" gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created."

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/opinion/16rich.html?pagewanted=print

He nailed it - the substance of the MoveOn ad was fine - great, in fact. But the namecalling was not only childish and unnecessary, it gave the right a huge strawman to throw around all week - instead of debating the substance, Dems got bogged down in a debate about whether Petraeus deserved to be called names.

What a wasted opportunity.

[babylonsister]

1. And that's the only paragraph in that piece I took exception to. Go figure. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. LOL me too

:toast:

[liberaldemocrat7]

51. Bunk, I discovered the name General Betray Us in March 2007 and referred to Bush with that name.

Hehehe a right wing blog found one of our stores products at zazzle and the freepersheep viewed it in droves last week :)

I approve of using disparaging names to counterract the right Wing McCarthyism. Moveon did well.

[beaconess]

5. I've always objected to the tactic of twisting adversaries' names in political debate

I think it is witless and childish - smacks of schoolyard taunting resorted to only when someone can't win their point with logic and fact.

It is very prevalent on DU, which I think is very unfortunate. For example, I can make a rational point about how terrible a NSA and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is without calling her "CondoLIEza," a tactic that turns my logical argument into little more than "nah nah nah." If the purpose of this kind of discourse is to make our points and win people over to our side, this is the worst way to do it, in my book.

[Justitia]

12. Me too. I think "Betray us?" was eye-catching, succinct & to the point. -eom

[ClassWarrior]

14. Exactly. Why do you think they howled so loud?

Because it was effective.

NGU.

[stimbox]

24. And they are still howling...

Checkmate. Moveon wins.

[Paladin]

46. Let 'Em Howl. And Let Them Fuck Themselves While Howling.

I've been a big Frank Rich fan for decades, but I have to take exception to his comments, here. For years, we've been subjected to a daily torrent of filthy insults from the right wing---Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter,et al, and their AM-radio wannabes across the nation. And these douchebags now want to cop an attitude about MoveOn's dead-on smear of a general doing Bush's dirty work? Like I say---they can all go fuck themselves. We need more ads like MoveOn's, not less. And for God's sake, let's not fall into the standard Democratic "we can't allow ourselves to sink to their level" play-nice attitude that has allowed the right-wingers to ride rough-shod over us for way too long. Enough is enough....

[ShortnFiery]

47. Right, if EVER there were a time for democratic candidates to NOT parse words NOR "play nice" ...

that time is NOW! :thumbsup:

[Cosmocat]

71. He is right ...

It burns my butt EVERYDAY to have our good boys and girls dying over there, to have BILLIONS poured into it, while OBL is lounging in the Pakistani mountains ... I knew they were lying on this from the very beginning ...

But, the Betraues ad just was counterproductive ...

1) I HATE how right wingers hid behind our troops with a passion ... BUT, chickenhawk freaks screaming it doens't change the fact that you just don't go with an ad campaign calling a soldier a betrayer ... Just not right ...

2) The above gave the right wing a BIG softball to hit ... I KNOW, I hate it as much as anyone, they WILL contrive SOMETHING to scream about, but that doesn't justify giving them the softball ...

3) The MSM IS going to carry water for them, whether we like it or not ... The ad gave the jagoffs an in to do so ...

I don't have a problem with the text for the most part, and YES, the right will vilify Move On like they do with any group that counters their BS ... But, the ad was counterproductive with the headline ..

[ellenfl]

2. i just wish the dems hadn't backed down

but had stood up to the repugs, instead of losing spine . . . again. i was waiting for just one dem to say that moveon was exercising their freedom of speech and that the outrage from the right was purely distraction . . . just one. :-( imo, petraeus betrayed the american people by tossing his objectivity. moveon wasn't calling him a traitor to the country but a betrayer of our trust . . . which he was.

i don't see how 'betray us' is name calling. they are clearly calling him out for what they (and i) perceive that he did. if they'd called him an a-hole . .. now that would be name calling.

that said . . . the controversy has made more people sit up and take notice of the message.

ellen fl

[WinkyDink]

3. But WAS "Defeatocrats" criticized? Or are only Democratic responses in kind taken to task?

[beaconess]

9. It doesn't matter whether it was criticized or not. We shouldn't turn into them just because

they got away with being them.

One of things that makes us different from the other side is that WE'RE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER SIDE! The minute we start behaving like them - and justifying our bad behavior by claiming that "THEY DO IT TOO!!!" we become almost indistinguishable form those we supposedly disdain.

One of the many reasons I don't support Republicans is because they engage in these kinds of tactics. So why would I want to engage in or support the very tactics I despise in them?

[The Gunslinger]

37. and dont forget

The swift-boat liars, Obama Osama, and breck girl, or even threats to kill Democratic candidates by republican spokesperson Ted Nugent.

The left is falling right into their hands by supporting the right in condemning Move On instead of supporting the real content of the ad.

[beaconess]

42. We want to emulate THAT?

I certainly don't think their bad behavior should be any standard by which WE operate. I believe we're better than that.

[The Gunslinger]

44. I'd prefer not to see the name calling, but

The right consistently operates like this with very little backlash form their corporate owned right wing media. That is what the left should be outraged about, not Move On.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Zero upside to "Betray Us"

I agree with him.

Those who agree with that ad have a laugh and, um, move on. Those who disagree have blood in their eye and look for someone to kill, in this case, Hillary.

We lose on that deal. Thanks guys.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Interesting that you ignore those in the middle.

Who now have read the substance of the ad. If only one more of them comes to our side, we win on that deal.

Thanks guys!

NGU.

[beaconess]

18. Do you have any numbers on "those in the middle" who read the substance of the ad

and now are switching over?

I think that anyone in the middle who read the substance of the ad would likely have done so even without the foolish headline.

This ad is one of the reasons we so often lose the public relations battle - that ad was pure red meat to the believers. But the believers are the wrong audience!

[ClassWarrior]

21. C'mon!! Red meat? That was mild.

I think that most in the middle wouldn't have read any of the ad if the RW hadn't given us this PR gift.

And, as you'll see in my post below, I'm only making educated guesses. Unlike you, who cite anonymous "polls" with no links.

NGU.

[gratuitous]

30. True dat

I mean, the incredible poll numbers out now, showing that the American people have now turned decisively and irrevocably in favor of the continuing occupation of Iraq, and that they're ready to spend even more lives and dollars surely is conclusive evidence that the ad was the worst political tactic of all time. Heck, even Frank Rich says so! Whose side is MoveOn on, anyway???

[OHdem10]

7. Bill Schneifer , Chief Political Analyst--MoveOn AD Distraction

will hold no long term effects. In long run it will hurt
GOP.

IMO, the Democrats as usual so easily bullied and quick
to appease the GOP.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Right. Like we need to "give" them something to whine about.

Give me a break. That headline gained attention for our position far beyond anything a more innocuous headline would have done. And the RW helped make that happen. Hardly a "distraction," it compelled millions to read the substance of the ad - which would have been ignored by most people otherwise.

Sorry, but if it's too ugly for you now, wait till the radical RW really starts to fight back.

NGU.

[Justitia]

13. u nailed it. -eom

[beaconess]

15. The headline got attention. But few who didn't already agree with us saw anything beyond it

I don't believe we won any converts with that ad - which was supposed to be the point, right? In fact, according to the polls, we may have lost ground.

Yes, the ad made the true believers - WHO ARE ALREADY ON OUR SIDE - feel really good. So what?

[ClassWarrior]

17. I'm guessing that we compelled millions in the middle to...

...actually seek out the ad and read it. And, while I have no statistical data, I'm making a very educated guess that if that did happen, we won most of them to our side.

NGU.

[beaconess]

19. Not according to the polls - which shows a slight uptick in support for the war

Whether or not the ad turned people off, it certainly appears that it didn't bring anyone over to our side.

Associated Press - Bush's handling of the war (9/10-12):

Approve 33% (up from 32% in August)
Disapprove 65% (down from 66% in August)

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[ClassWarrior]

23. What "polls"? Links please?

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

26. And while we're waiting, I'd like to remind you that it's not a war.

It's an occupation.

NGU.

[zonkers]

10. Lets forget this blunder and move on.

[Nite Owl]

16. Play on his name or not

Were we betrayed by him and this administration? We sure were and it's time that was openly discussed.

[beaconess]

20. Then THAT's what should have been discussed - the namecalling was just stupid

[stimbox]

25. There was no name calling.

Now if the ad had read General Poopyhead, then that would have been name calling.

[madfloridian]

22. It was a great ad. It was true and we are being betrayed..

And our Democrats who have insisted we talk softly for years are at it again. The ones under the New Dem mantle are terrified of the Republicans.

[OHdem10]

27. Rich as usual expects the Democrats to appease the

Republicans.

Why are Republicans to name call, swiftboat, and be
downright nasty and the Democrats must always apologize.

The Riches of the World,along with Political Consultants put Kerry and Gore in straight jackets. Made them look weak.

The Riches of the World helped put GWB in office. Thank him
for that.

[beaconess]

28. Ah, yes - Frank Rich. Enemy of the Democrats. Of course. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

31. Still looking for the links to those "polls"?

NGU.

[beaconess]

32. Then I suggest you re-read my post

I edited to include the link

[ClassWarrior]

34. I don't see any polls. Just Rich's opinion piece.

I'd like to know the statistics - and the polling period.

NGU.

[beaconess]

36. You're reading the wrong post. Read the post that actually mentioned the polls!

Jeez.

[ClassWarrior]

43. The polling periods in ALL of those polls were before the ad ran.

Jeez.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

48. I hear crickets...

NGU.

[beaconess]

50. You're wrong

The polling period was September 10-12. The ad ran on September 10.

"Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Sept. 10-12, 2007."

Of course, you're free to cite polling data that contradicts the AP poll. So far, you've offered nothing.

By the way, regarding your "crickets" comment, unlike some others here, I DO have a life and don't spend all of it sitting in front of my computer conversing with strangers. So if you have a problem with "crickets," I suggest you limit your online engagement to those with nothing better to do with their time than spend it arguing with you.

As for me, I stated an opinion, backed it up with data, which you have yet to counter - notwithstanding your outright mischaracterization of it - and, until you offer something more meaningful than the snarky, inaccurate, and useless responses you've presented so far, there's nothing else for us to discuss regarding this matter.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. I agree. I think effective communication ought to win out over the

quick and cute and temporarily satisfying urge to call names.

[beaconess]

35. Unfortunately, many on our side fell right into Bush's trap

He set up Petraeus as his front guy - knowing that Petraeus has much more credibility than he does and that people would either be loath to attack him or, if they did attack him, Petraeus would absorb much of the wrath that should rightly go to Bush.

And our folks fell right into the trap. Instead of going after Bush and keeping the focus on him and his war, they went after Petraeus, making HIM the issue. And they did so in a very sloppy way, to boot.

The issue isn't Petraeus or whether he's telling the truth or whether he's a good or bad guy. He's a military man following orders. And the person whose orders he's following got much more of a free ride last week than he deserved - he got to sit back and watch his general take the heat and become the focus of most of the debate.

[Supersedeas]

70. almost as if it were sabotage from within

[ShortnFiery]

33. Yeah, good luck keeping us liberal democrats LOYAL to your corporate masters.

:thumbsdown:

Good luck in that upcoming presidential and congressional elections without us.

I'm only voting democratic on a local level. :grr: :nuke:

[beaconess]

38. Yes - Frank Rich has always been a tool of the Bush Administration

Ha ha - it's fun to see how quickly folks turn on someone who has been carrying our water for years as soon as he says something with which we disagree.

So much for honest debate. Apparently, Bush is not the only "my way or the highway" kind of guy around. :-)

[ShortnFiery]

39. I've not ever claimed to be "a Frank Rich fan"

:shrug: Besides, if democrats are ashamed of their liberals, other than a local level, I'll vote elsewhere (Green).

Hey, more and more I'm becoming convinced that The Democratic Party, in it's effort to triangulate - snag - the moderate republican vote, has thrown LIBERALS overboard.

What a shame, but now, unlike all the whining about Nader, you will be right when you "cry and blow snot" after losing the General Elections that *those mean old LIBERALS* are fully responsible for OUR (The Democratic Party) downfall. No, it couldn't be that you have ostracized the left and we've had quite enough of your mistreatment? :thumbsdown:

[durrrty libby]

40. Wes Clark agrees with you. He was on CNN this am and said

he wished that Move On had called him before they printed it

He said he would have explained that Petraeus was just the quarterback and Bush

is the coach. He did not appreciate the name calling.

I think CNN weekend replays if you want to hear the

entire exchange.

[ShortnFiery]

41. CNN = Corporate News Network ... Soon to be promoting the next pre-emptive war with Iran!

:eyes:

[Larkspur]

49. Wes Clark is wrong about Pretraeus

Pretraeus has a long history of boot licking and his boss, Admiral Fallon, calls Pretraeus an "asslick'n little chickenshit".

Pretraeus has a history as a WILLING tool for the Bush Admin. He wrote an op ed 6 weeks before the 2004 election saying things in Iraq were improving. Pretraeus was not ordered to write that op ed to help the Bush Admin. He did it voluntarily.

[xchrom]

45. general petraeus -- the man who wants to be president 2012

thanks you and frank rich for your support.

[dugggy]

52. The juvenile name calling is the main reason why the

progressive cause does not win elections on a larger scale.
You are right Beaconess, a little growing up won't hurt.

[Skittles]

54. OMG

are you people on drugs? Repukes don't name-call? Does SWIFTBOAT mean anything to you?

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1307

[DemBones DemBones]

61. Maybe on drugs, maybe on

the wrong forum. :shrug:

Who could resist calling him General Betray-Us? His name led to it so easily.

[Skittles]

65. his name plus the fact the bastard DID betray us

he is working for the interests of bush and the GOP, NOT America

[beaconess]

66. Yes - Swiftboat means plenty to me - that's why I don't want us to imitate them!!

Do you really believe we should adopt these tactics?

I sure don't. If we can't win on the facts and the issues and can only prevail if we play as dirty as they do, how are we ANY different from them? And isn't the difference between us and them supposed to matter?

Or is it just about winning at any costs, even if we lose our souls?

[Paladin]

67. You're Playing Directly Into The Right Wing's Hands

You're articulating the same old "ooo, we gotta be nice to the bad conservatives so they'll like us" mantra that's been knee-capping the Democratic Party for decades. We didn't start a long-overdue resurgence in this country until we began taking the fight back to the know-nothings, rather than acting like a bunch of punching bags. Conservatives depend upon such a weak-kneed response from us; they exploit it and they hurt us with it, over and over again. Just who do you think is a more effective liberal spokesman---Keith Olberman or Alan Colmes?

I'll repeat something I've been saying for some time: we Democrats have a right to be furious at the sorry depths to which our country has been taken by this corrupt Republican regime. We have a right to exhibit that outrage, and more than that---we have a duty to do so. Those of you who can't get a fire going in your bellies over how things are will regret such timidity in the future.....

[beaconess]

69. You apparently don't know the difference between focused outrage and childish ranting n/t

[dugggy]

68. I have to believe we are better than the repukes..

We are more tolerant of others, more civilized, more intelligent
than the repukes. We don't need to get into a mud slinging
contest with them. The general population will then view us as
what we really are, a genuine and caring bunch of people.

[Skittles]

53. PLEASE STOP IT

repukes start an endless war that KILLS PEOPLE EVERY DAY but the outrage is about a G.D. AD??? WILL YOU PLEASE GET A GRIP. Don't you get it? THAT GENERAL IS NOT SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - HE IS A BUSH WHORE AND DESERVES TO BE CALLED EXACTLY WHAT HE IS. We should not apologize because people who think he is some kind of FUCKING HERO may be OFFENDED.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1307

[tsuki]

55. The "name calling" got it the publicity, otherwise it would have been

a forgotten piece.

[robcon]

57. ...and the publicity was uniformly negative,

and undermined the contents of the ad.

[tsuki]

60. Depends. It played well down here. A lot of people heard about the ad and

agreed, people that would have never heard about it without the controversy.

[enough already]

56. Call him every name in the damn book

Fuck him and everyone who ever has and continues to support this mess.

[jmp]

58. The NY Times shilling for the Bush administration?

I don't believe it! :sarcasm:

[Joe Bacon]

59. I'm still waiting for Frank Rich to apologize to Al Gore

I still remember how sleazy Frank Rich and his pals at THE SCREW YORK TIMES were in 2000. Time and time again, ol Frank the Bush Fluffer kept writing that there was no difference between Al Gore and George of the Bungle. Nope, in fact a lot of times ol Fluffer Frank said Al Gore was WORSE than Bush. Go to Bob Somerby's archives at the Daily Howler and see how Bob meticulously documented all the lies Fluffer Frank wrote.

Unitl Fluffer Frank apologizes to Al Gore in public for the way he lied about him, I don't give a damn about anything that pompous fart writes, PERIOD!!!!!!

[DemBones DemBones]

63. Damn straight! Any of you who aren't reading

http://www.dailyhowler.com

should be! Great media analysis, going all the way back to 1998! You can learn all about how the media defeated Dems in 2000 and 2004, promoting lies against the Democratic candidate, while portraying Bush as "someone you'd like to have a beer with," etc.

[AnnieBW]

62. I agree

I kind of squicked on the "Betray-us" thing. It was so... right-winger.

[Cha]

64. Oh yeah, like Frank Rich is the

Know It All on what constitutues a good hard hitting ad from the Left.

I remember one of his columns where he was snide and snerky about Al Gore like Mr Rich is soooooooo much better. HA!