Not a single Democratic leader said it was ok to use the words "betray us"

[madfloridian]

It was, you know. The use of the word "betray" was just fine. We have a president who can barely speak good English, who has lied us into war, who has taken our country to the brink of destruction. It is certainly fine to use the word "betray" in an ad against a general who had been conferring with the White House on his report.

But the media and the right wing noise machine have made our party cower for so long, it just seems natural now.

Even the ones who voted against a "reprimand" for MoveOn and the party activists...refused to stand up for the right of MoveOn to use that word. They either evaded the issue or spoke against it...even those who voted no spoke out against MoveOn.

I saw no one on TV who is considered a Democratic leader speak up and say hey it's ok to use that word...it's fine, no problem. They were afraid.

This article is written from the anti-MoveOn point of view, but it does get a lot of statements in one place.

Pandering on the left

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Michigan's Carl Levin, was equally blunt. "Totally inappropriate," he said. "There is no place for that kind of personal attack on our military people."

He voted No. But he was outraged at truthtelling.

Did you think the MoveOn.org advertisement about General Petraeus was . . . appropriate?" interviewer Charlie Rose asked Senator Hillary Clinton in an online "candidate mashup." Her nonresponse: "I think that we should focus on what the problem is here. The problem is a president who has a policy that flies in the face of reality.

She voted no, and a good comment. But still did not really stand up for the right to use the word.

"I'll be honest with you," he dissembled. "I am less interested in the motives or what General Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker are responsible for than I am for what the president is responsible for, and that is the mission that has been assigned to those people. I think the mission is the failure."

Obama did not vote. He does say it is a failure...the mission that is. No real defense of the right to use the word.

Even lamer was John Edwards, who said he knew nothing about the ad. "I'm sorry, I just haven't seen it. So it's hard for me to comment on it."

Edwards' wife spoke out against MoveOn very firmly.

The only Democratic presidential candidate unafraid to tell off MoveOn was Senator Joseph Biden. Queried on "Meet the Press," he replied forthrightly: "I don't buy into that. This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth."

Biden's response was not surprising.

From a Yahoo article:

Wes Clark: Well, I think for Chuck Hagel, who's a sitting Senator who wants to criticize a General, that's fine. That's his right to do so. As far as Admiral Fallon was concerned, if he's got a personal quarrel with Petraeus, you know, that's between the two of them. Petraeus works for him, obviously he feels cut out and to some extent I've known situations like that, but, um, as for Moveon.org, it was a mistake.

MoveOn and the Kabuki Congress

Governor Howard Dean....silent. Probably would have to condemn MoveOn or have the posse after him. This is the man who often quoted MLK...that our lives begin to end the day we don't speak out. Sad, Governor Dean. Winning at all costs is not winning.

Since 2000 we have been betrayed as a country, and as a party. Democrats who voted for the war are now in a position where they are stuck. They have to be careful not to say too much, I guess, lest the war someday be looked upon as an illegal action, or at the very least, immoral.

There was never anything wrong with the use of the words "betray us". It was a fabricated issue, and our party went along.

[ShortnFiery]

1. These candidates need to get out and talk with "the people" because they haven't a clue

how disgusted the American Populace is with continuing this immoral occupation. :grr:

They triangulate and listen to their arrogant strategists FAR TOO MUCH. :(

[Sparkly]

4. Well, it doesn't necessarily mean they aren't equally disgusted with the occupation.

They may just think the ad wasn't helpful to ending the occupation.

[madfloridian]

6. It was not their ad. They are being "cautious".

And every damn day they are being so cautious, our soldiers are dying and more civilians are dying. IWT had a video interview with one of the Blackwater victims from his hospital bed. So tragic.

[Sparkly]

10. It's clearly tragic -- I think they know that.

Again, some may believe the ad was counterproductive. It's certainly enabled the GOP to get everybody (including us) talking about the AD, and not the details of Petraeus' report.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Yes, let's HERD those cats - and have zero team work. Atta boys and girls congress!

BTW good job at "keeping your powder dry." :eyes:

[Sparkly]

21. See, I don't think it is about keeping powder dry.

I think it's political snares and traps, lures and bait... As I see it, the GOP set a trap, and MoveOn went for it. The resulting rightwing fake-hysteria has distracted and shielded them from the REAL issues about Iraq, the White House/Petraeus report, the Webb amendment, etc...

[madfloridian]

22. No, it was the Senate and the Dem leaders who fell for a trap.

Move On was right all along.

[Sparkly]

28. A lot of them did, too. I agree.

And I agree with MoveOn that the Petraeus "report" stinks. I also agree they have a right to print whatever they wish. I just think it would have helped get to the point if they'd instead attacked BushCo directly, and instead of Petraeus' picture, shown BushCo holding him up as a shield and hiding behind him -- or something like that.

[madfloridian]

30. Did they have a vote on the purple band-aids yet?

No, I did not think so.

[Sparkly]

36. Nope.

And they shouldn't have had a vote on this, imho.

[TwilightGardener]

45. You're focusing on settling old political scores--the American people

don't remember or care about Kerry, Max Cleland, or purple bandaids. That's Democratic navel-gazing and wound-licking, and has absolutely no bearing on this situation. What matters is, MoveOn publicly and personally attacked a guy, right before he even testified, who is generally afforded some deference and respect from the public because he currently serves in a war zone--whether or not they told the truth is only your opinion, and it doesn't matter anyway. Truth and politics are two separate things. It was a dumb political move.

[madfloridian]

47. Continue please.

This thread is one I will save for the future.

It is beautiful example of where we are going now at DU and in the party and the country.

I will keep gazing at my navel, thank you, and I am sure I will get more words of wisdom coming my way.

Illuminating for sure.

[TwilightGardener]

52. I'm not sure what you mean about "where we are going" at DU--

I'm only talking about the political ramifications and fallout of the ad. To me, and probably to many Dems, it was bad strategery, and I'll bet there are a lot of pissed-off Senators and candidates who now have to deal with MoveOn's stupid mistake.

[madfloridian]

59. Sorry, still navel-gazing

.

[klyon]

206. Doesn't everyone have a right to speak freely

even if someone might hold a different view point. We should all be standing up for free speech.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

151. if it's any comfort to you

I agree - I am sick to death of being nice so the scary GOP monster doesn't get all upset and come out from under it's bridge and call me a traitor.

sick I tell you.

[ljm2002]

130. "The American people"...

..."don't remember or care about Kerry, Max Cleland, or purple bandaids. That's Democratic navel-gazing and wound-licking"...

Well thanks so much for that pithy analysis.

What exactly is it, then, when the GOP gets all faux outraged against an ad that say mean things about their favorite general-du-jour? Oh, that's right: it's not navel-gazing, not wound-licking -- it's an ass stomping.

And that is exactly why we continue to fail: we aren't playing offense.

We could have hammered them about their lack of deference to generals -- Shinseki and Clark come to mind -- and we could have hammered them about the SwiftBoaters and the Cleland slanderers and REFUSED to even consider such a trumped-up grandstanding move. But we DID NOT DO SO, instead laying down like beat puppies.

I'll stop there as my ability to remain civil about this is being sorely tried.

[TwilightGardener]

137. Sorry, but I'll wager my "pithy analysis" is probably pretty close to the truth--

like it or not. Get pissed all you want at how ruthless, unprincipled and unfair the GOP is, how dirty they fight. Makes me mad too. But again, MoveOn fell for the set-up--the GOP and BushCo were DARING Dems to attack a member of the military. Dems didn't, but an outside group did, and the Dems are taking the political heat for it. It's a real shame, because it set back the momentum to end the war, at least for this week.

[madfloridian]

140. That is just not true.

They did NOT have to vote to censure their own activists.

There is no reason for that at all. Stop making excuses

[TwilightGardener]

142. "Their own activists"? MoveOn might donate money to them, and might

support the same causes and legislation, but I would not say they are official spokesmen of the Democratic party, any more than Club for Growth or ACU are official spokesmen for Republicans--these are outside groups that do not represent the parties. Democrats do not have to support MoveOn, and do not have to apologize or defend them when they fuck up.

[madfloridian]

143. You think it is ok for the Senate to condemn the speech of a liberal group?

I am stunned at that.

It is setting precedent for the future, and it truly scares me that no one here seems to care.

[TwilightGardener]

144. No--I thought it was a stupid resolution, but it was MoveOn's fault that

the Dems ended up in the political bind that they did in the Senate. Of COURSE some partisan fuckwad like Cornyn was going to devise a way to make some GOP political hay out of this--I'm sure our Dem Senators saw this coming as soon as that stupid fucking ad came out. It's just a goddamn shame it had to happen at all, and that we're still talking about it instead of the defeat of Webb/Hagel, which REALLY breaks my heart as a military wife.

[madfloridian]

148. They were not in a poltiical bind at all. They are in control

They have the power of free speech, and the power to keep bills off the floor.

The arguments here blaming Move On for forcing the Senate for the first time in history to condemn words...are just disingenuous.

[ljm2002]

146. Okay, gloves off...

...first off, I have to say, you have a real skill at mis-stating others' arguments. I am beyond being pissed at the Republics, they are what they are. What I am pissed at is our own caviling cowards, who are all too ready to jump on their own at the behest of the other side.

Moveon did not fall for anything -- they played offense. Now you might say they were offensive in how they did that, fine. Personally I found the ad mild, and the fact that the play on his name so enraged people was a good sign because it shows that AT LAST something said by our side actually had an effect and got under their skin.

I am sick to death of being kicked around by the party that I have voted for and donated to all of my voting life, because I'm just too left and liberal and, well, rude for them.

Screw 'em. There's some of us out here who are ready to show them just what REAL RUDE is. I am THERE.

(on edit) And the fact that Moveon is nearing the $2M mark in donations in reaction to the Senate vote, ought to tell you something. Really I'm serious. Please think about it: that is an awful lot of people who, in reaction to a vote trying to chill political speech, put their money where their mouths are and encouraged, and financially enabled, Moveon to step it up.

Well actually, I don't give a rat's ass whether you think about it or not (yes my civility is gone now). Your opinion about this is irrelevant anyway, since you clearly miss the essence of what is happening here. Sorry to be insulting but I warned you. Mods, do whatever you think is right. I don't care. I'm tired of trying to have a two way communication with someone who distorts and puts words in my mouth so they can keep pounding their own interpretation.

[madfloridian]

150. Hey....

:applause:

[TwilightGardener]

152. You responded to MY post first, and I answered you. WTF are you getting mad at?

I reread what I wrote that got you so huffy, and I can't find anything offensive about it. If you can't handle other people's opposing viewpoints, then a political forum is probably not the place for you. My opinion is every bit as valid and relevant as yours.

[ljm2002]

156. You said, and I quote:

"Get pissed all you want at how ruthless, unprincipled and unfair the GOP is, how dirty they fight."

That was an inaccurate synopsis of my post that you were responding to. My post clearly was angry about the Democrats' response to this -- that the Republics would try such a stunt is a given. Sure it pisses me off, but that is not at all the main thrust of my fury at this ridiculous Senate vote, nor is it the main thrust of this entire thread. So I saw it as an attempt to deflect the discussion so you can continue to hammer your point, while not actually responding to mine.

After re-reading our posts (and others on this thread), I have not changed my opinion.

It is truly amusing that you suggest "a political forum is probably not the place for you", apparently because I called your opinion irrelevant. Well guess what? $2M says I'm right.

[TwilightGardener]

157. Uhhh...again, you responded to ME first, and I really don't understand why, since

you didn't seem to acknowledge my point--just took a slim piece of my post and went off on an angry tangent. Don't use me as a springboard for your own bullshit, and then get pissy when I don't agree with you or understand your dumb-ass nonsensical ravings. I STILL don't know why your tail is all fluffed up, but whatever--and my opinion is still just as relevant as yours, once again. Deal with it.

[ljm2002]

158. "Deal with it."

Hmmm, where have I heard that before...

Well anyway. You seem to find it odd that I responded to a post of yours. Maybe that is why you have trouble with comprehending the actual points being made.

Oh well, enough of this. Just remember: $2M says your opinion about this is, in fact, irrelevant. Deal with it.

[TwilightGardener]

159. And 20-some Democratic Senators agree with me. Can you say

"Relevant"? I knew you could!

[madfloridian]

160. Out of fear of displeasing the right wing.

.

[klyon]

205. My question is: What would you expect the General to say?

He works directly for the administration.The administration put him in this position. George Bush has betrayed us. The General is doing what he is told. The General should never have been put in this position of spokesperson for the administration. Months ago we all knew what would be said in Sept.

[anniebelle]

67. Absolutely! It was the perfect trap

if it had snared its intended target. Instead our so-called 'leaders' were so busy trying to cover their own asses, they forgot about the traps this gang of liars and thieves are going to use EVERY TIME THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT! Have we not learned anything these last six years?:banghead:

[ShortnFiery]

27. I consider it VERY APPROPRIATE to as the question "betray us?" While our troops die

for the corporations stealing our tax dollars by the hundreds of billions.

Damn! If you're not outraged about this MANUFACTURED WAR and seemingly endless occupation, then I don't know what to tell you.

The Congress have NO idea how angry the average American is that our youth and his/her tax dollars are being TOSSED AWAY hand-over-fist to feed war profiteers. :grr:

Yes, I'm angry and I think such an ad is mild compared to what these EVIL masters of war are doing to our American youth while stealing our hard earned tax dollars. :(

[Sparkly]

33. I do too -- and I think the question should be focused on BushCo.

They WANT to hide behind Petraeus.

I'm not sure what I said that makes you think I (or anyone else) am not "outraged about this MANUFACTURED WAR and seemingly endless occupation." Of course I am! And with all respect SnF, I think that's a strawman that's too easy to reach for when people's opinions differ on the political strategy for getting to an end to it.

We're all angry. And yes, I think there's no question that the ad is mild compared with not only the war, but the attacks the rightwing have made on the military and its personnel.

[ShortnFiery]

39. Petraeus is a morally bankrupt General serving in the Army, he's NOT the military.

But I understand your point. I feel, however, that "my party leaders" are NOT representing their constituents but are in an INSANE WALTZ with the republican leadership to continue this horrid occupation. Forgive my tin foil hat, but methinks, ALL is not as it seems. :scared: :(

[SOS]

66. That powder is so dry now

it'll simply blow away in the next Bush zephyr.

[leftchick]

2. pandering to the right as usual

and glorifying the US military like good soldiers. :puke:

[sandnsea]

3. Nobody chastized Keith Olbermann for it

He used the word "betray" in connection to the Petraeus testimony. The problem was impugning the General's integrity before he'd spoken a word. Questioning his honor with no evidence. Like Mean Jean did to Murtha.

Too many people around here are absolutely incapable of applying the same standards of discourse to themselves as they do to the right. In that regard, they're as big a hypocrites as the freepers are.

[madfloridian]

5. It has been all over the news that Petraeus was coordinating with the WH

So that was the context. It had not been secret at all that it would be the WH report.

There was no problem with the words.

[sandnsea]

11. Which isn't evidence he had lied

If you're going to call someone a liar, you better have specific lies to make your case. If they had done it the way Keith did, will he betray us, they could have drawn attention to the testimony and then followed up with his misrepresentations the following day.

The right gets away with their shit because the nuance matters.

[madfloridian]

15. Wait, oh wait.....where did I use the word "lie" against Petraeus?

It is a proven fact Bush lied us to war.

You are defending the indefensible now, that our Democrats attacked their own base publicly in the senate.

[sandnsea]

42. Oh, that's not what the ad meant

Okay. Sure. :eyes:

I've already said Feingold is the only one who had it right, which was to refuse to participate in any of it.

What's indefensible is that we wasted time on this stupidity instead of organizing to put pressure on those Republicans who were waivering on the withdrawal legislation. That's what's indefensible.

I don't give a shit about 'betrayus'. It's a complete waste of time.

[madfloridian]

43. I don't give it up that easily.

The party was wrong, MoveOn was right, and free speech paid a dear price.

[sandnsea]

48. Nobody fought for the withdrawal legislation

Don't think you can put yourself up on some moral high horse. There was no effort here to pressure specific senators to get the withdrawal vote. Kids were arrested at Grassley's office to try to put attention on the vote. That's worth a fight. This shit is phony activism that requires no sacrifice and exacts no consequence. It's bullshit.

[madfloridian]

51. "phony activiism" You really said that?

Shameful.

[sandnsea]

55. General "Betrayus"?? You damn straight it's phony

The civil rights activists in the 60's, who put their lives on the line to register voters in the south, that was activism.

Pink outfits and street theater? Puhleeze.

[madfloridian]

58. I am not in code pink. I am still an activist.

And you are still judging.

[sandnsea]

61. but you weren't

It's not judging as long as people agree with you, is that it?

[madfloridian]

63. You are defending a Senate condemnation of their own party.

And that is just so sad. Maybe hell hasn't frozen over after all, sandnsea.

[sandnsea]

65. I condemned the entire thing, both votes, all stupid

but you keep making shit up so you can have some other phony thing to attack me over.

[WCGreen]

7. BINGO....

Just as Move On has the right to criticize, those who oppose them are free to criticize Move On as well...

And no one should be forcedd to defend what they say, only that they have the right to say it...

I just wish someone on "our" side would have had the guts to say I disagree with what they said but come on folks, this is America and they are free to criticize whom they choose to criticize....

[madfloridian]

9. And they in congress are free to let our soldiers keep dying...

Because of fear. Because they would rather spend hours on the floor of the senate debating the use of two effing words than stand up to Bush.

[sandnsea]

14. Democrats did say that

20some voted against the resolution. But oddly enough, those are the folks who are always attacked by the left.

[WCGreen]

24. I didn't hear any of their comments...

I was referring to the leadership, those running for president and quiet frankly, people who purport to "speak" for the democratic party on the cable shows...

[conservdem]

68. I think you are sadly correct when you wrote "Too many people around

here are absolutely incapable of applying the same standards of discourse to themselves as they do to the right."

I have frequently noticed this problem.

[TankLV]

114. sure ya do.,..

[madfloridian]

118. I am so damn tired of being insulted by conservative Democrats.

I have written a thoughtful post. I always write stuff that is thoughtful.

I am damn sick and tired of the conservative wing of the party insulting my intelligence.

Now alert on me...go ahead.

[TankLV]

113. Difference is - Betrayus is already a PROVEN LIAR - the rest aren't...

It was entirely appropriate and REQUIRED...

This creature is NOT to be trusted with telling the TRUTH. Period.

[ljm2002]

155. the same standards of discourse???

Are you effin' kidding me???

We are so beyond "standards of discourse", it would be laughable were it not so tragic.

And your analysis of why others were not censured (or whatever it is, technically, that the Senate did with that ridiculous vote) -- your analysis illustrates exactly the meaning of the word "cavil":

to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually fol. by at or about): He finds something to cavil at in everything I say.

"The problem was impugning the General's integrity before he'd spoken a word."

Never mind that we already knew his testimony was bought and paid for, never mind that he is shilling for a war that was waged under false pretenses (and is to this day), never mind that our soldiers are dying over there to protect a government that has zero chance of unifying the country, never mind that only 10% of the benchmarks if that have been met (okay maybe I'm exaggerating there -- but I don't think so), the important thing is the timing of their ad. And that of course explains everything: why the Senate never censured the Swift Boaters, or the Cleland smearers, or for that matter, Jean Murtha herself. Right.

:sarcasm:

[Trajan]

8. I think it was a public relations blunder ....

As much as we despise the MSM and their coddling of the GOP and conservatives: it is equally important to USE the media in ways that HELPS our cause .... and does not hinder us ...

The name calling aspect is the problem : The 'General BetrayUs' name bastardization is something that people of all political stripes simply do NOT like ..... It is too reminiscent of the schoolyard taunts and adolescent nonsense that, for many, hits deep within the psyche .....

The decision to use THAT headline was a mistake, pure and simple ..... IF the idea of taking advertisements is to persuade and convince, than it is important that you DON'T resort to cheap shots and insults, and maintain a respectful mien .... I think the majority of independents and moderates who have until now been on board with us were taken aback by the crass name calling ....

It is PROPER to call Petraeus out for his misstatements and misleading claims ...

It is PROPER to say he 'betrayed us', by pointing out what he said that was WRONG, and how it hurts the country to LIE to the american people ....

It was wrong to use childish, teenage taunts to speak to the electorate .....

I don't care WHAT the GOP has said in the past: We are better than they are .... That is no excuse .....

It was a major blunder .... and it hurt us ....

[madfloridian]

12. We will be cautious and proper to the end.

And the end is not far away. We will chastise those who don't use proper words and defend a Senate that reprimanded it's own base.

I feel sicker each day over this.

[Trajan]

23. well ... it sounds like you have given up with any pretense of civility .....

But most haven't : It isnt a matter of choosing to be civil: it is a MUST for those who choose to speak to a large group of people in order to change their opinion ......

The message about Petraeus was RIGHT and CORRECT ...... the delivery of the message was defective .....

You have to be careful how you argue in public ...... even if you are right, using ill thought language can sink your argument and cause a LOSS of support ....

I said nothing of the Senate, but the taunting tone of the ad put them on the defensive (NOT THE MESSAGE ITSELF) ..... I blame Move On for creating this problem ...... THEY chose to nature of the ad ..... If they would have kept the silly insults OUT of the ad, we wouldnt be talking about this right now: we would be talking about the false testimony in the hearings .....

[madfloridian]

You are saying I am not civil? Is that correct?

That same old bad activists meme is really in effect here at DU.

I hope people see it.

I hope they see your lecture to me about being properly civil.

Perhaps you should read some of my journals before judging my civility.

[madfloridian]

41. Your "civility" statement to me is a personal attack really.

It is not CIVIL.

It is typical of the party leaders and their lectures toward the base now.

You are lecturing me for being right, and for being outspoken about it.

And don't use the "right is relative" argument on me while soldiers are dying.

And NO, the senate did not have to be on the defensive. They let the right wing put them there.

They are going to lose next year if this keeps up.

[Trajan]

74. It was not a personal attack ....

It was a response to your statement that civility doesnt matter in political advertisement, and your apparent embrace of the idea that media expressions should contain immature name-references ....

I didnt say "YOU are uncivil" .... I said : 'You object to civility in public discourse, and so you reject civility in the public sphere' .... Dont twist my words into a strawman ....

Look .... I like you, and have been here with you at DU for a very long time. As a lifelong Democrat and student of life, I have opinions about what works and what DOESNT work in the public sphere when it comes to political statements. I think THAT ad had one section that could have been avoided ....

I think it should have been avoided ..... We could easily paint someone who expresses falsehoods in our congress as someone who 'betrays us' without resorting to the immaturity .... It was a poor choice, and gave an edge for our opposition to grab onto that resonated with the public .....

That is MOVE ON's fault ..... not mine, and not yours ....

I will continue to support them, AND you ... But Ill be damned if I have to apologize for such blunders ..... They needed a public relations crew when they created that ad ..... all they apparently had at the time were some teenagers ....

[madfloridian]

79. It is not the fault of anyone but the Senate Democrats. Period.

It is a step forward into never criticizing the military, using careful words, never offending the powers that be.

They let themselves be led around by the nose by a corrupt administration.

I think you should know if you have read anything I have written, that I choose words carefully. I am civil.

The Senate laid out a path to censorship.

How can all of you criticizing me fail to see that the Senate's step is a scary one?

Implied criticism of the military...that is what it was about. We better not ever do that again...that was the message loud and clear.

AND NO ONE stood up for our side.

[beachmom]

90. Actually, it is the fault of the Republicans. I am tired of Democrats

for being blamed for something that, in essence, is of little or no substance. I thought the Cornyn amendment was dispicable. But for reasons John Kerry spoke of on the Senate floor Thursday night, something no one is talking about:

http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/9/21/kerry-s-speech-to-the-senate-on-need-for-new-iraq-policy

It is as insulting as it is illuminating that in a week-long debate in which each side can offer just five amendments, the Republicans would waste one of their chances to change a broken policy by choosing instead to embrace a political stunt.

It seems to me the fact that the Republicans threw away one of their five amendments on the most important issue facing our country right now should be SHOUTED OUT by the netroots over and over again. How people voted was as irrelevant as the amendment itself. The truth is the GOP thought a non-binding resolution condemning a political ad was better suited for Senate debate than actual Iraq policy. That tells us how seriously the American people should take the Republicans on national security. Hmmm .... maybe they ought to be booted out of the Senate come November 2008 for using the Senate as a talk radio forum for the Right Wing ideologues.

[madfloridian]

96. No, it is not. It is the fault of our party for pandering to them.

And if they don't stop it they will lost next year.

[beachmom]

101. I strongly disagree with the notion that a non-binding resolution vote on a

throw away amendment will mean the demise of the Democratic party. Come on, Mad. No way.

[madfloridian]

103. Stop making stuff up.

Why should I work or donate to someone who thinks it was right to condemn the base.

BTW MoveOn is heading toward 2 million...so I must not too far fringe...you think?????

[beachmom]

106. I receive e-mails from Moveon. The res. did not condemn Moveon,

just the ad (and as I have said, I thought it silly to vote for Cornyn, but Dems like Webb did. I was disappointed by those votes, to be sure. I'm just not livid by it.). And how is it "condemning the base"? Were you in the room when those words were decided upon to appear in the NYT? I sure as hell wasn't, and I'm on their e-mail list. Seems to me it is more a condemnation of whoever created the ad and whoever approved the ad.

I guess I am so puzzled why you and so many others are so mad about this.

[madfloridian]

110. You are puzzled why we are mad?

Well, then you would not understand if I tried to tell you.

For the first time I know of, our Senate spent an afternoon condemning people who fight for them because they feared the right wing.

It is a step toward censorship. It set precedent in the senate?

Why are we mad? Really?

[TankLV]

115. It WAS a personal attack - just for the record...

[Trajan]

141. Simple ....

It was not ....

Feel free to insist it was, as you already have, but that doesnt change anything ... does it ?

[PurityOfEssence]

31. I guess we're pretty much alone in that assessment here...

When I first saw it, it sounded like one of the cutesy posts on DU and that it would be bad for the cause. Calling a career military officer some version of a traitor doesn't really warm that many hearts.

It was juvenile and it shows a lack of respect. To argue the point that he was misleading and otherwise painting a happy face on the situation is very clouded by the reality of military operations: one can't divulge ALL of the information without compromising security. His job is to follow orders, and much as that echoes Nuremberg, the price these people pay is quite high for their careers. Call him a stooge or a functionary, but to use a highly-charged twist on his name like that invites endless wrath.

There's a tiresome bit of schtick within political groups: strutting and trying to prove oneself more uncompromising and "truer to the cause" than others. That's all fine for rock-throwers, but people in a pluralist society need to know how to present their side of things effectively. This is not effective.

[madfloridian]

35. "cutesy posts" on DU

Oh, my. This is getting very interesting.

Please continue.

[PurityOfEssence]

97. Nothing particularly arch here, I'm just referring to the many literary flourishes people make.

I'm annoying enough myself with overly-contrived wordplay, too--like using the term "unswervative"--and sometimes people really dash off a zinger. Many other times, these bon mots are just tiresome. "Betrayus" is an obvious play on words, as Colbert so playfully pointed out a few days ago, and many other nicknames have been used over the years here. I generally refer to W as "Junior" because it's a blatant insult to his hereditary privilege. Others have come up with some true gems for him, like "Potemkin Village Idiot", "Dim Son" and the delightful "Petroleum Bonaparte".

That's all I was referring to: cutesy wordplay that's sometimes very amusing and sometimes tiresome in its repetition. I'm long-since weary of hearing the term "repukes", and we all have different tastes.

Using this term for an active-duty general in the headline of an article is counterproductive, though: it won't sway anyone who doesn't already agree. Sure, articles like this aren't necessarily designed to garner more supporters, but I don't think this particular piece was designed to just rally the faithful and remind them they're not alone, I think it was meant to enlighten and convert some who were on the fence. The very use of such a highly-charged term defeats that purpose.

[madfloridian]

104. I don't do "cutesy posts", and you made it sound like I do.

I am amazed at the ones here defending the Senate condemning a group's ad.

It is shocking.

[PurityOfEssence]

122. That's hogwash: reread my post, it's clearly about the original article

The post you take issue with was a response to Trajan's post #8, right? Yes, that is correct.

Trajan is referring to the ad itself, and so am I when using the word "it". I even refer to it being similar to posts on DU, not to "other posts on DU". I suppose I could have been ultra-clear by replacing "it" with "the MoveOn ad", but I was crediting the readers with some sense of the obvious.

When writing my first response to you I had no idea this is what you thought, and if you bother to reread THAT post, you'll see this is quite obvious.

Don't be so sensitive if you're going to be so combative; it'll annoy you to no end.

[Tom Rinaldo]

169. Hey PoE. We agree - how 'bout that. Nicely stated.

And I am an active Move-On member (hosting house parties etc.) and supporter who hates what the Senate did. There is no contradiction in my feelings. Of course it is hogwash for anyone to condemn Move On as an organization over this ad, or to single them out for attack over a questionable choice of words when the same people who are most "outraged" by it are happy to appear on stage with Anne Coulter. That doesn't stop me from thinking that Move On made a tactical error. It won't be the first or last time that bright and courageous people make a tactical error. Learn from our own mistakes and keep fighting, but don't let others get away with hysterical grovelling hypocritical posturing over this either. The U.S. Senate had no more business concerning themselves with that ad than they did intruding themselves into the Terry Schiavo case.

[PurityOfEssence]

177. Yep, the vote was cheesy grandstanding

It's rather reminiscent of another embarrassing moment: the non-binding resolution in support of the pledge of allegiance keeping "under god" in it that they did right after Newdow's case.

Much as I view the title of the ad as a blunder, making hay about it with a vote is just playing to the cheap seats. There are many lessons from this particular episode, and we're idiots to not pay attention and learn from them. One is that people often don't read beyond headlines. Another is that a very emotional issue should be dealt with very carefully. Another is that active-duty soldiers are emotionally "off limits" to many people. A BIG ONE is that, constitutionally, those in the military are relegated to the role of being functionaries; if one hates policy, one should go after the politicians for whom they front.

Sadly, far too many people when they consider themselves downtrodden are actually more desirous of humiliating and ridiculing their oppressors than they are of winning. (I keep saying that I think this is one of the motivations for trying to shove another Clinton down the reactionaries throats, but that's another screed...)

Quite frankly, if it takes sucking it up and giving the reactionaries an "out" by saying that they were mistaken (instead of deliberately falsifying the reasons for war and occupation) and doing what they though right (instead of on a vicious greedfest for oil) to get us out of this war, I'd do it. The important thing is to end the killing.

[TwilightGardener]

13. What's Wesley Clark talking about? Hagel didn't criticize the General, he

criticized Bush's use of him to sell policy. Anyway, I think "Betrayus" was dumb, and I don't blame our candidates for backing away from it. It was dumb to even focus on Petraeus in the ad--the focus should have been on how Chimpy was using Petraeus, not on Petraeus himself. Chimpy tossed GenP out there, daring people to attack a military guy, and MoveOn walked right into the trap. Stupid.

[Sparkly]

19. I agree with your take on the manufactured controversy...

They held up Petraeus as a shield, hoping somebody to attack him so they could scream about it and divert attention. Petraeus, and "the military" in general, are still used as the shield they hide behind, so that when Republicans are criticized for their disastrous policy, they can cry, "You're attacking the troops! You're smearing the military!" It's really difficult, PR-wise, to aim the attacks straight at the administration. Their Petraeus ploy was another political shield, and a direct strike against him was exactly what they hoped for.

(Edit: I don't know what Hagel said.)

[TwilightGardener]

37. Yep--it was all a set-up, and MoveOn could have

wisely avoided it by saying something like, "It's sad that Bush has so little credibility left that he has to rely on the integity and credibility of the military leadership to keep selling his war to the American people." I would not have questioned the integrity of Petraeus before he even spoke to Congress--you can't call someone a liar until he officially lies, and politically, it's dumb to call someone in the military a liar anyway. MoveOn should have left it up to the Senate to highlight the contradictions and problems in GenP's testimony, and they actually did a good job of it, but that's not the story now, is it? No, it's all about the ad. We all might believe that he's a liar, but we have to understand that it probably won't play in Peoria. That's called political smarts, which is sorely lacking on the left. As far as Clark and Hagel goes, I clicked on the link in the OP, and Matt Stoller mischaracterized Hagel's comments on the Bill Maher show, when Hagel said that Bush using Petraeus to sell policy was "dishonest, hypocritical, dangerous, irresponsible"--he was talking about Bush, not Petraeus. Clark probably didn't realize that.

[Sparkly]

40. "contradictions and problems in GenP's testimony"

Exactly!! THAT is what should be the focus now!!!

[SteveM]

17. I don't buy this argument. MoveOn did K. Rove's work and didn't take a dime.

Calling a major military leader by the name Betray Us, or reasonable facsimile, is just the kind of thing that turns off millions of Americans, even if they oppose the war. And it's just the kind of thing that the far right and its media (Fox, et al) can pump again and again as the voice of the Democratic Party. Better yet, it's the kind of thing that the GOP can use (in a Senate resolution) to show how they once again cowed down the Democratic Party and taint them with, well, betrayal.

MoveOn showed bad old-school "media savvy" while positioning itself as the Internet's cutting edge. That kind of flame-bait edge is best left on the bathroom wall of our keyboards.

[madfloridian]

44. Oops....we made the Republicans all upset again.

Let's face it. That is what this is all about. It is about upsetting the opposition.

It is called Stockholm Syndrome.

[TwilightGardener]

46. No--MoveOn didn't "upset" them. MoveOn made them overjoyed by handing them ammo.

[madfloridian]

49. And the Democrats told the GOP...stand back we will get those activists for you.

They took care of their own, didn't they. So the Republicans did not have to do it.

[TwilightGardener]

54. It's not about "getting" activists--it's about Dems not wanting to be

associated with a personal attack on a man who is currently serving in a war. I don't blame them.

[madfloridian]

60. Ok, what about swiftboating Kerry and the purple bandaids

why didn't they reprimand the right wing blogs for that?

[TwilightGardener]

62. Well, Boxer tried. Repubs mostly stuck together on that vote--only

three R's voted with her. R's will never condemn anything their side does--it's time to accept that and stop expecting fairness and playing by the rules from them.

[goodgd_yall]

147. Agree with you.

Bad media savvy and no sense of where Americans draw the line of what's acceptable. I think we ofttimes can get very myopic and forget who makes up a large part of the American citizenry.

[madfloridian]

18. When betrayed for years, it is ok to use the words "betray us".

It is just that simple.

Some will go to their graves defending the ones who let this travesty of justice happen.

[madfloridian]

20. Bring it on, folks. Not a single one in this thread defending MoveOn

The influence of what our party leaders say is so powerful.

Just bring it on.

No ad is perfect, but the outrage against this one was planned.

It is terribly scary to me.

[WCGreen]

25. I guess yo didn't read my post....

[Sparkly]

26. I totally agree the outrage against the ad was planned. nt

[Trajan]

29. You are quite wrong ....

You are seeing human nature .... DONT sell us short or so cheaply ...

Hell: I havent watched ONE MINUTE of news the last 10 days ....

Do please: DONT dare insist that we are stupid automatons who only follows orders from the party masters .....

It is simple: The ad was poorly focused, and detracted from the message: If MoveOn is going to stand up on our behalf, then they should do it WELL ...... They made a mistake ..... They should own up to that, learn, and 'Move On' to the next opportunity, and hopefully do better ....

[madfloridian]

32. It is simple. Dems are hiding behind the ad as excuse for doing nothing.

That ad is just one example. I am sorry, but the statements in this thread are just absolutely scaring me.

Being proper is everything now. Being right is nothing.

[sandnsea]

50. No, Moveon is pretending the ad is doing something

Neither one has done shit and we let them all get away with it.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Yes, MoveOn should have Swift-Boated Petraeus instead. Those Ads were much more classy.

:eyes:

[Trajan]

73. Another problem ....

Using 'Swift Boating' as some model to emulate is a huge mistake ....

You are saying "I wanna Swift Boat someone too ! " ????

One could rightly question the logic underlying such a desire ....

I say this: We should NEVER emulate things that we despise in our enemies .... I despise them for a reason .....

I do NOT intend to become my own enemies, and therefore, will not behave as them ...

WHO needs swiftboating when you have the truth ? ....

Furthermore: Who needs swiftboating when those who speak for us stumble so badly ? .... Trust me: The SWFB crew is sitting back and resting for this one: They dont have to lift a finger ....

This was a serious blunder .... I don't doubt it can be overcome, but Move On should seriously consider professional consultation before they buy another ad ....

[ShortnFiery]

75. I don't think you appreciate the EVIL of the repukes - to win figuratively "take NO prisoners" ...

and don't look back. These people are vicious - more the need to "hold with the team" and fight back like there's no tomorrow. There may not be. :nuke:

[madfloridian]

38. I must admit....this thread is fascinating

The comments are so in line with where our party leaders have been and are right now.

It is beautifully done, folks.

[seriousstan]

53. "barely speak good English"....unlike yourself

:rofl:

[madfloridian]

57. Rack up another insult.

Thank you so much.

[madfloridian]

56. All of my life...

I was told to loosen up and quit being so righteous and following the rules. I was in both high school and college told I was too moral and never had any fun. I was one of the ones who judged the girls who did it when good girls didn't do it... I judged and counted the nine months they disappeared because there was no abortion legal. I look back in sympathy now to them. I followed the rules, raised five kids, have a wonderful hubby and a good life.

Now I see the other side of the coin. Now I am being judged for being too activist and not proper enough.

That is very odd. Because I am telling the truth, and our party is avoiding it.

I am ok being made fun of for this. The other was ok also. I have been on both sides of speaking out. I like this better.

[2rth2pwr]

Why does everything have to be about you?

Me,me,me... it's all about me.

[madfloridian]

70. Have you read the thread? I did not make it about me.

It's pathetic the insults in this one thread. I see you missed my point.

Until Iraq, I was no activist. See....you did miss my point.

I was insulted for being proper, and now I am insulted for being an activist.

Seems to work, though.

[ShortnFiery]

77. Bless you madfloridian, I truly understand.

But they will not listen. :shrug:

[polichick]

64. I guess the word "betray" hits a little too close to home. nt

[madfloridian]

72. Yes, I think so.

A scapegoat was needed to deflect attention. They got it.

[William769]

69. This is proof positive that it just goes to show

You can't please some of the people any of the time.

[madfloridian]

71. We have "reprimanded" our own activists.

Maybe now the party proper can start a lawsuit against MoveOn.

Put them down really hard.

[AX10]

76. The Democratic establishment are a huge part of our problem.

They want to pander to their opponents. It is easier for them to surrender than to fight.

[ShortnFiery]

78. I'm so ashamed of our Democratic establishment. :( nt

[flpoljunkie]

80. Agree with Consortium News that MoveOn ad was silly and allowed R's to divert debate on Iraq War.

Recent email from Consortium News, no friend of the Bushes:

Republicans scored political points and diverted the debate on the Iraq War by concentrating media fire on MoveOn.org's silly "General Betray Us" ad.

But the underlying lesson is that the Right's powerful media apparatus -- built over the past three decades with many billions of dollars -- can transform any misstep by the Left into a major national issue.

Meanwhile, the Left continues to shun the need for a media infrastructure that can restore some balance to the U.S. political process.

[madfloridian]

81. None of the blogs really took up for Move On.

Few of the left wing sites. They are afraid as well.

I believe in my OP I stated they make us cower.

Daily Kos never had a front page post about it.

See, looky, it is all the fault of the stupid lefty group. I disagree with Consortium news on this.

No one takes the side of the left. Never. I think a couple of smaller blogs mentioned it...but most of them bashed MoveOn.

We are afraid, and we should be. We have lost our country. The Senate vote sort of confirmed that.

[Cha]

83. George Lakoff did and George

knows how to frame! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x308150

And Andy Ostroy stuck up for moveon..the link is in the above thread.

More great news...Moveon just raised $1,000,000 from supporters, as you know, and on to the Million number 2!

[flpoljunkie]

85. I agree with Consortium News now and I did when MoveOn put this dumb ad in the NYT. Why serve them

a slow, fat one across the plate? As I said previously, otherwise they got NOTHING! The Moveon ad was a gift that kept on giving for the beleaguered Rethugs.

[madfloridian]

86. There was nothing wrong with the ad at all. It is cowardice speaking

through our Democrats.

I am sad to see Parry's take on that. I really am.

I posted the article.

[madfloridian]

105. Well, be sure you speak in a politically correct way from now on.

And never criticize the military, and all will be well.

[Mass]

138. I am not surprised that Parry undestands how the media work.

I find that it is amusing that those who are supporting freedom of speech for themselves refuse it to those who disagree with them.

The US Senate should never have taken this amendment to a vote (be it the Boxer or the Cornyn Amendment), but it is silly to attack any individual who did not find the ad great or even to their taste. This is denying their freedom of speech at the same time we are asking for ours.

And YES, Parry is right. We are unable to react with the same level than the right reacts because we lack the infrastructures. The few really progressives magazines are too busy blasting other Democrats to blast the right, and KO and Bill Moyers are not enough to counter the RW media.

[madfloridian]

139. Now wait a minute on that .

There is no excuse for bringing a condemnation to a vote. I am sorry, but Harry Reid has the power to stop things from getting on the floor.

They did NOT have to condemn their own. The noise machine aside, the Democrats do not have to be cowards.

[Mass]

163. We agree on that - As I said on my post, this bill should never have made it to the floor.

Feingold was the only one to have the right reflex by voting NO to the two bills. He still said he did not care for the bill. Parry said he did not care for the bill, obviously (what exactly does he have to be afraid of?). Edwards said he did not care for the bill. Obama said he did not care for the bill.

They are all perfectly entitled to their own opinion and to state it. If they think the bill was not good, they have the right to state it, whether you and I agree or not. This does not make them cowards.

[madfloridian]

82. MoveOn passed 1.5 million, heading for 2 million. Follow the progress.

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donate.html

Meanwhile back at DU there are folks being blasted for supporting them.

I stand with MoveOn and truth.

[stimbox]

109. I stand with MoveOn and the truth too.

2 million is a lot of hard hitting ads!

[madfloridian]

84. I found the Consortium article by Robert Parry....I find it sad.

that I guy I respect so much does not see that he is every bit as insulting to the anti-war groups as the Senate was.

It scares me to see that people I respect like this do NOT see the implications for the future in that Senate reprimand.

It's sad, and it bothers me, not so much at the personal attacks on me in this thread....but that people simply don't see the dangers.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092207.html

"The furor over MoveOn.org’s silly “General Betray Us” ad – which led to a bipartisan Senate condemnation of MoveOn after Republicans blocked a move to include right-wing smears against military veterans like Democrats Max Cleland and John Kerry – carries a bitter lesson for the American Left."

He calls is silly. WHY did the Democrats vote to condemn their own if the GOP would not include those groups.

This is scary stuff. He admits the Democrats behaved badly...but look at how he excuses it?

"Yes, it’s true that many Democratic senators behaved spinelessly, but a leading reason for their political cowardice is the Republicans’ extraordinary ability to whip up national frenzies over anything that can be portrayed as an affront to them or their allies."

He said it was ok because the ad was silly and they are scared little Democrats.

He makes a lot of good points, but the main point is fear of the minority. How scary is that.

Sorry, Mr. Parry, that does not excuse your calling the ad silly.

What a sad month this has been in our party.

[madfloridian]

87. "a bitter lesson for the left"

That is a statement from Robert Parry, yet he seems to blame us for not being proper and cautious and unoffensive.

""The furor over MoveOn.org’s silly “General Betray Us” ad – which led to a bipartisan Senate condemnation of MoveOn after Republicans blocked a move to include right-wing smears against military veterans like Democrats Max Cleland and John Kerry – carries a bitter lesson for the American Left."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092207.html

Yes, it's lesson is that our own senate is now monitoring speech and the use of words because the Republicans told them to do it.

When I see the people I respect giving in to fear and calling things "silly" that come from the left....I see an America I never saw before.

[TankLV]

116. Yeah - and MoveOn is laughing all the way to the bank with additional MILLIONS in cash...

I am glad to be one that helped with the millions...

That'll teach us a lesson!

The lesson is: When the spineless dems do something stupid, let alone go after the wrong target, people will ABANDON them in DROVES - and put their money to better more effective uses...

[beachmom]

88. It's namecalling, MadFloridian. I didn't like it. It was childish sounding.

That's what is not being talked about. The fact that half of the activists, and quite a few moveon members, did not like that particular ad.

I think your posts have been superb on many issues, but this issue is really quite simple. A lot of Democrats just didn't like the over the top language of that ad. For me, Petraeus is not the problem. Bush is the problem. Wes Clark said at YearlyKos that we should be screaming about how Bush is hiding behind generals, instead of taking responsibility for Iraq policy. The problem is less the generals, and more the Bush administration.

You are right -- no Democrats defended that ad (maybe one House member). The simplest answer is that people sincerely did not like the language, even if they have many shared goals in common with Moveon. It went beyond the DLC and reached all the liberals to. Nobody liked the ad.

[madfloridian]

89. Well, at least the guy on AAR's Clout....agrees with me.

He thinks it is totally outrageous. He is really ripping into them.

I think it is sad and scary.

There was nothing wrong with the ad. It shows the right wing power, doesn't it?

We are fraidy cats.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1514

[polichick]

92. You're so right, there was nothing wrong with the ad...

It asked if Petraeus was betraying us ~ with a question mark. Fox asks such things about Democrats every day and nobody bats an eye.

<>


If Dems keep playing wiffle ball when the Reps insist on hardball, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves for the mess our children inherit.

[beachmom]

93. This is about what kind of political discourse we want to have in this country.

Do we want to fight fire with fire? Or fire with water? I saw the ad before the full faux right wing outrage was unleashed; I didn't like it. I wrinkled my nose. You know, part of the reason why I can't stand the GOP is the way their ideologues talk; it's not enough to disagree -- they have to insult, malign, condemn, make up lies about their opponents. I don't think it would be a good thing for this country if the way we decide to combat the Right is to become their mirror Left version. We're better than that. We're better than that ad.

On the blogs, it is me who is in the minority, not you. But if you go outside that circle, you'll find most people did not like the ad.

[madfloridian]

94. I just read Kerry's statement in the JK forum.

I don't like it at all.

I seldom criticize him, but I am now.

This is what our party has done.

Stop it.

[beachmom]

98. Well, he was called names and had his military record dragged through the mud.

Forgive him if he doesn't want to go along with another name calling session of a military man. (Feel free to peruse the hearings to know he was tough on Petraeus) And Kerry defended Moveon.org as a great grassroots org on cable tv. What he wouldn't defend was the over the top language in that ad. But to be honest, I had already formed my opinion on that ad before he spoke up, so his opinion had no bearing on mine.

As you said in the OP, Dean was quiet about it. Which brings me back to the fact that the simplest answer for the Democrats' reaction to the ad was the good and honest opinion that they didn't like the language.

Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I thought all the Dem amendments on Iraq going down in flames was far more discouraging than a throwaway non-binding resolution.

[madfloridian]

100. That is just spin.

He is defending Petraeus who stood before congress and said the surge was working. I just read the speech he gave, and it is alarming.

[beachmom]

107. No he didn't! I don't see how you can say that. He said the surge

was NOT working and talked in detail about the fact that there is no political progress happening, which means the violence over all in the country will NOT go down. He said it doesn't take security to get into a room to agree on the political benchmarks the Iraqi government ITSELF SAID it would get done.

He kicked McCain's ass on MTP last Sunday saying that.

He went after Petraeus on a different day for his 2004 op-ed which said progress was being made when it WASN'T.

It is one thing to say Petraeus is being misleading, spinning events on the ground, etc. That doesn't mean you have to call him names.

I'm officially done with this thread.

Edit: that speech was 45 minutes long. Maybe you ought to watch it:

http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/09/senator_kerry_demands_new_iraq.html#comments

[madfloridian]

111. I am referring to this paragraph. The ad was NOT over the top.

"The Senate did not need to spend hours today on this debate. Nine days ago, the first time I was asked about the ad which the Senator from Texas loves to talk about, I said it was ``over the top'' and ``inappropriate, period.'' I said that, as a veteran, I thought it was wrong to characterize any member of the military in the way General Petraeus was characterized in that advertisement. I have nothing but respect for General Petraeus. I wasn't alone in that feeling. Senator Reid spoke out. Senator Biden spoke out. There was no question about where Democrats stood. And we ratified that opinion in a broad condemnation of that behavior--including the Petraeus ad--in the Boxer amendment."


Ok, now, the words Betray Us? had a question mark, yet they are all going crazy calling us over the top.

[madfloridian]

102. Oh, why didn't the Democrats vote to condemn those ads?

Boxer tried, but the same Dems who condemned US did not want to condemn the swiftboat ads.

Where are you getting your reasoning on this?

[TankLV]

117. But you people just don't get it! MoveOn was telling the TRUTH - the swiftboaters were LYING

that's why we can be so strongly FOR the MoveOn ad and justifyably strongly CONDEMN the asshole swiftboaters!

It is being entirely CONSISTENT, unlike some people's phoney and misplaced outrage...

You just don't get it!!!

[polichick]

166. Exactly!

But this thread seems to be more about a few posters who want to go after one another than it is a meaningful discussion of the facts. I'm thrilled MoveOn.org has raked in so much money to keep the ads coming!

[madfloridian]

95. Please don't use that "political discourse" stuff on me.

I am well educated. I hang out with educated people who are not very fringe like. I am in the "moderate" crowd, if we must use terms like that.

This is about protecting Bush because they are scared of him.

We have no leaders now. Just mouthpieces for the GOP.

[madfloridian]

99. The words used in the ad were not out of line.

I have noticed that people are reacting as their 04 candidates have.

Amazing, huh?

I can see in the tone of your post that you think people like me who accepted the ad are not as proper as people like you who did not.

That angers me so very much.

[goodgd_yall]

145. Having given some more thought

on the ad, although I did not find it over-the-top and thought it pretty mild compared to tactics used in the 60s and 70s, I think the ad was poor strategy for getting Democrats elected and getting support for Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq.

Why didn't MoveOn wait until Petraeus had finished with the hearings? The ad was a distraction. Instead of the media focusing on Petraeus's inability to answer the question of whether Iraq was safer, it focused on the ad and reaction to the ad. We can criticize the MSM for falling for the cheap shot, but we know that it loves to sensationalize and it isn't going to change anytime soon. The thing to do is not give it ammunition to allow sensationalism.

A more strategic move on MoveOn's part would have been to let Petraeus be heard and let the American people draw their conclusions without the distraction of the brouhaha over the ad. The ad contributed nothing, really. Most people expected Petraeus to have an optimistic report even if it wasn't truthful. Also, I agree with others who say the ad would have been just as effective without the "Betray Us" bit.

MoveOn maybe getting a lot of contributions; good for them. But what we need is a Democrat in the White House. This can come back to bite us (Dems) on the ass when the primaries are over and the top 2 contenders of each party go at it.

[madfloridian]

153. All the comments go back to the fear of the right wing.

Either we get over it or pay a dear price.

[madfloridian]

91. Apparently the "netroots" offend the Democrats too much.

Even those of us who try to be careful when we write and speak. I got a call from someone we supported last time, another district, but nearby.

They wondered if we could do some online work and some donating for their campaign this time.

I asked their opinion of the attacks on the DNC, I asked their opinion of the senate vote about the ad.....they were both bad answers. We said no, thank you.

[LoZoccolo]

108. I think you did the right thing in refusing.

It's much more productive to argue theory on the Internet about an ad that MoveOn is never going to run again, or talk about how upset you are that there are some powerful people who don't agree with you. That is where your time should be spent.

[madfloridian]

112. The conservative wing of the party that wants to spread democracy....

won this round.

Your insults to me as well as all the others in the tread show me that our party is shaking in its boots.

BUT not from the activists. They think they don't need anyone who really cares and works like hubby and I did. They only need the right wing base.

Your attitude toward me is arrogant.

I have sincere concerns and you care about one-upmanship.

The war will continue. The conservative wing will continue to dominate. They will come here to insult people who really do care about the military and the dead Iraqis.

And it is a vicious circle. No one cares that the first step was taken toward censoring free speech.

[Cha]

121. Firedoglake has made the points..

MoveOn did not lie to get the country into a needless, bloody war; Bush/Cheney did.

MoveOn did not fabricate a phony link between Saddam and 9/11; Bush/Cheney did.

MoveOn did not fail to plan for an extended occupation; did not fail to protect Iraq’s national treasures, did not fail to secure Saddam’s conventional arms caches or prevent them from falling into the hands of those likely to resist the invasion; did not disband the Iraq Army, putting thousands of trained/armed soldiers on the streets with no jobs — Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

MoveOn did not install a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad and then profess shock that Iran was gaining too much influence; Bush/Cheney did.

MoveOn did not inflame Iraqis by authorizing torture and failing to set humane rules for Iraq detentions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo — Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did.

MoveOn did not authorize the presence of 20,000 to 30,000 armed mercenaries and did not force the Iraqis to accept their presence without any legal accountability to Iraq and did not fail to follow up with any legal accountability in the US — Bush/Cheney and the current acting Attorney General did.

MoveOn did not fabricate one phony assessment after another about how well things were going in Iraq — Bush/Cheney did, and Petraeus’ performance was just another example.

MoveOn did not extend combat tours and shorten rest time for our troops, stretching and exhausting the US Army and placing intolerable burdens on their families — Bush/Cheney did.

MoveOn did not mislead the American people about troop withdrawals by first increasing levels by 30,000 to unsustainable levels and then claim credit when it was forced to reduce levels by almost the same amount — Bush/Cheney/Petraeus did.

MoveOn did not divert our attention from the efforts to capture the al Qaeda organization and leaders who attacked America on 9/11 and did not start an aggressive war against a country that posed no significant threat to America or its allies — Bush/Cheney did.

It takes a specially heavy dose of amnesia to ignore all the facts and a unique brand of political stupidity to vote to condemn, not the perpetrators of these outrages, but instead the organization that has done as much as anyone to get the truth to the American people.

The American people have been fundamentally betrayed by an incompetent, thoroughly dishonest, and dangerously bellicose Administration. Everyone who is sent forth to speak for this reprehensible regime has eventually become either tainted or co-opted, their reputations shattered. Just ask Colin Powell.

It’s time for Congress to stop condemning free speech by those who tell the truth and start holding the offending regime accountable. Because if you don’t, the American people know how to hold you accountable.
http://firedoglake.com /

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=309119&mesg_id=309398

[madfloridian]

123. That was a great post, wasn't it?

But read this thread and weep. The ones who sent us to war, and want to keep us there, though they use the word residue....are getting off free and clear.

The messenger is being bruised.

[Adelante]

167. If only FDL had written the MoveOn ad

It would have been "President Betray Us" - it would have Bush held accountable, as he should be.

[LoZoccolo]

124. Maybe you can convince me that dwelling on this MoveOn thing will get you anything you want.

The Republicans want you do to that. They're the ones that introduced the bill! Do you think they did it not knowing that it would drag the Democrats into a big internal fight over something that is past and done?

Check out my post on it. It's pretty short; I promise: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1868430

No one cares that the first step was taken toward censoring free speech.

Huh? So now if someone disagrees with you, that means they are taking steps to censor you?

[madfloridian]

126. The Senate took a formal vote on a resolution.

It set a precedent.

They did censor us. it was step toward controlling our speech. They were afraid of the right wing and let them control the message.

[LoZoccolo]

127. "No they didn't." "Yes they did." "No they didn't." "Yes they did."

The fact of the matter is that MoveOn could run that ad tomorrow if it wanted to.

Actually, you could even just take all the text from the ad, and repost it as a thread in General Discussion if you wanted to too. It would give you plenty of opportunity to further feel sorry for yourself that other people might have the arrogance and callousness to express an opposing position.

[LoZoccolo]

128. And actually, if they came and arrested you for posting it, you could complain about that too.

You could write a whole book of complaints. I'd go for it if I were you.

[madfloridian]

129. You sound awfully pissed over just two words with a ? after them.

I think maybe it is hitting too close to home about all the soldiers dying and the war that our Democrats can not pass anything about.

Your anger at me is strange.

[LoZoccolo]

132. You are going to have to help me out.

Which two words with a "?" after them are we talking about? I am not seeing them in any of your posts in this sub-thread, or the original post.

I don't really have anger at you because I'm pretty much used to your modus operandi. You'll post about how oppressed you feel that some important person or group of people disagrees with you, not respond to anything they have to say, act like it's a foregone conclusion that you're right and they're wrong and they must have some super-mean motive, evoke pity for yourself, ascribe motives to any detractors who show up, and generally make the whole thing about how cheated and beaten-down you feel that people have the audacity to say something you disagree with. If an army of "hurrah!"s doesn't show up, you'll reply to your own post with some more kindling. Repeat until emotionally satisfied. Maybe I'm jaded, but I just can't get angry about something that predictable, that I've seen over and over.

It's more like frustration; frustration that I can see the Republicans are getting their way. By your own disclosure here, they have succeeded in getting at least two people to not help defeat them in the next election.

[madfloridian]

133. You are digging the hole of insults deeper.

I was warned not to let you get to me, so I won't.

Here is the ad I am posting about. See if you can guess which two words with ? after them.

https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

[LoZoccolo]

136. Don't ask me why I feel this way or that if you don't want to hear the answer then.

You asked why I was "angry" and I explained my mood in this situation. If I would have just said "I'm not angry" you might not have believed me, seeing as you were the one who ascribed anger to me to begin with. I felt like giving some "proof" that that wasn't so.

I'm perfectly willing for this discussion to be about whether or not we should still concern ourselves with the ill-conceived ad or the stupid symbolic resolution that the Republicans designed to get MoveOn members away from defeating them.

Actually, the people defending the ads could be said to be upset about two words. The rest of the ad would have on its own impugned Petraus' idea that the Iraq War should continue. Insisting on inserting a snarky insult does what? Those type of things never compel anyone who doesn't already agree with the meat of the argument. A competent political strategist would see the snark as a risk with no potential political benefit and would not have taken the risk. Yet people insist it should have been there - I'm having trouble coming up with any reason other than their own emotional satisfaction, and putting emotional satisfaction before political gain is a sure way to waste all of MoveOn's money.

[madfloridian]

119. All of you making fun of me....watch this video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x56494

Some of you in this thread who are trying to make me look like a fool were very angry about the senate doing this until.....until....your candidates came out opposing Move On...over the top. Then you changed.

Shame on you.

[madfloridian]

120. Blogger says it it good to see the Senate " move on something with such alacrity!"

And it is, isn't it? It was heartwarming to see what they could do when their butts were being shoved by the right wing.

Moving with alacrity

"The Senate in its infinite wisdom has taken speedy action to condemn MoveOn.Org for its recent ad regarding General Petraeus. It is almost breath-taking to see them move on something with such alacrity!

Isn't it nice that the mighty Senate, the most powerful decision-making body in the world, can take time out of its busy schedule to consider little old MoveOn?

Of course it does lead me to wonder why the Senate, in all its majesty, is not able to move with the same quickness on the monumental problems that confront our great Republic.

Could it be that the truth hurts? Something sure got them off their numb posteriors in a hurry!

As with many actions, this one also has had unintended consequences.

Thousands of people who never before heard of MoveOn.Org now are aware of its existence. Donations have have been sent in at an unprecedented rate, and membership has exploded."

And a view I had that this is really about who controls the message. They simply can NOT let those nutty activists get too powerful. They only need them for votes, nothing else.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1514

What a day this has been. I have been put down for pointing out that our Senate did something very dangerous and not a single Democrat stood with the base. Few in this thread see the danger. Even fewer care. But you sure got your digs in.

[Cha]

125. Oh yeah, our senate is so

Swift.

[ljm2002]

131. Thank you, madfloridian...

...your analysis is right on the money.

We have no party discipline, so we never speak with a unified voice, leaving ourselves open to the charge that we "don't stand for anything". Our party has forgotten, if they ever knew, the rules of procedure so they get gamed time and time again on that score. Worst of all, our party NEVER sticks up for their own, allowing the Republics to hammer us again and again.

And I am sick to death of it. I am getting very close to the "a pox on both their houses" position, and I don't want to be there. But I'm in despair.

How can it be: the least popular president since they started measuring (or damned close), a war that a majority of the population wants us out of, and majorities in both the House and the Senate. Yet we can't win for losing. No party unity, and these fools think that now is a good time to kick their base in the seat of the pants and tell them to mind their manners.

This is NOT a time for business as usual. This is NOT a time for "collegiality" (which, as Norquist pointed out, is really a euphemism for date rape -- at least when proferred to the Republics). This is a time for principled action, and for RIGHTEOUS ANGER. But they just aren't there -- apparently being raped in public is not all that big a deal to them. And the effect it's having is to engender that RIGHTEOUS ANGER in the base that they are pushing away. This will not work to their advantage in the elections, quite the contrary. They look weak, so leave themselves vulnerable on the security front -- doesn't matter what they say, doesn't matter how much they verbally suck up to our "magnificent military", the message still comes across: these people do not stand for anything, and they do not stand up for their own. So why would you want them in charge of protecting the country?

Gaak.

[madfloridian]

134. Thank you. That 20% president won another round.

He went on TV, said the ad bothered him and all of sudden the Democrats fixed it.

It was sad.

[unkachuck]

135. great post, madfloridian!!

....I think you're right on target....I also think the main crime of the ad was that it was affective....betrayus and petraeus easily rolls off the tongue and is easily remembered by the sheep....

....our quisling 'leadership' turning on us, is the REAL story....a real story many of us won't soon forget....

....pissing on us has become a regular event....when they come to us individually and collectively begging for money and votes many of us are going to remind them what A-No.1 said....

...."Tell them your story. Make 'em weep. You could have been a meat-eater, kid. But you didn't listen to me when I laid it down."

[AuntPatsy]

149. We know we have been and or continuing to be betrayed, our voice

all together would certainly be heard shouting out the truth, fear is nothing new to most politicians these days nor to us, but simply because they didn't stand behind the truth doesn't me we have to do the same and I honestly feel that our voice is louder, the polls are proof.

[madfloridian]

154. Every argument offered goes to fear of what the right wing will do.

I find that amazing. It is the only one given, in various forms. Fear that it will anger them. When does it end.

[Tom Rinaldo]

201. I don't worry about how the Right will react

I take that as a given. I know how they react, always. But although our nation is continuing to polorize politcally into right and left camps the center, in varied shades, has not completely vanished yet. When attempting to stop a war with the Presidency occupied by those who want it continued, the left has to consider those in the center, or the moderates, or the undecideds, or the uninformed, or the misinformed, or the wishy washy whatever way the wind blows voters, or however else you want to describe them also.

I have no fear of what the right wing will do. I have an interest in winning this battle, and toward that end I have an interest in reaching people who are not firmly in our camp yet to pull them toward us, and think it at least worth considering if any of our efforts to do so are poorly designed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

161. I Would Have Voted Against The Resolution

I would have voted against the resolution because I don't believe the Senate should censure public interest groups...

I do have major problems with the ad... General Petraeus was given a mission...He put his mission in the best light...I have no doubt he thinks he is on the right track no matter how dubious a proposition that might seem. It's really no different than the coach of a losing team or the president of a failing company believing success is right around the corner. During the darkest days of the Great Depression , Herbert Hoover said success was just around the corner...


Don't blame Petraeus, blame the Decider!

[Inuca]

184. He was one

of only to Rs (Specter being the 2nd) to also vote for Boxer's version.

[cali]

162. Oh for fucks sake.

It's your OPINION there was nothing wrong with the name calling or implied name calling, or whatever you wish to designate it as. I thought it was puerile of them to engage in name calling, and though I didn't like the resolution business, I totally stand with the dems on not endorsing it.

It was name calling, pure and simple, and could have easily been avoided. They could have run the body of the ad with a different header.

Talk about dredging up reasons to be pissed at the dems.

Color me disgusted with your OP, and your deeply flawed "reasoning".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. What's Amazing

What's amazing is "everybody" was talking about the ad and "nobody" was talking about the war the past couple of weeks...From a results oriented standpoint did the ad bring us closer to ending this war?

[cali]

165. Giant step for MoveOn

one step backward for debate over the war.

[madfloridian]

185. You really are lecturing me a lot lately.

All over the boards.

[Adelante]

168. To flesh out your little snippet collection, MF

Clark on Scarborough's morning show

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I didn't like the play on General Petreaus' name, but I will tell you this that it's certainly within the purview of any organization to question U.S. policy. And so, I felt the tactics were wrong, but I felt their intent was perfectly fine. They should be asking questions about the policy. (clears throat) I very much regret the fact that all of this has distracted America and enabled some people to escape the consequences of a policy that's just not very effective. The surge is not working, and it was designed so that military improvements and military security could lead to political compromise. There'd been no political compromise. Of course, if you put in troops, you're going to get some improved security for a while at least, but we don't know what's going on underneath the veneer of security, and we certainly have seen no evidence of any political compromise coming out of it. So, I think President Bush's policy's wrong. I think the surge is failing. I think MoveOn's correct to point that out. I think they were incorrect to make the point on General Petreaus' name. General Petreaus is, he's in the chain of command. He's doing the best he can to support his President, his Commander In Chief, and that's the way it should be. That's what we expect of the men and women in uniform. We expect loyalty up the chain of command. So, I think the, the, the issue is to attack the substance of the policy, which has shown that it's not effective rather than going after the man.

[madfloridian]

170. Thanks, but that is just my point.

He and all the others said what MoveOn did was incorrect. That is not really their right nor was it necessary.

General Clark has a right to his opinion. MoveOn has rights as well, as do the rest of us in the party.

It was not wrong or incorrect to use the words Betray Us with a ? after it.

[Adelante]

171. It was stupid is what it was, in my opinion, and therefore incorrect

It handed the other side the weapon and said shoot! As I said above, had it been "President Betray Us?" it would have worked without drawing a firestorm that took attention away from where it needed to be, on the CIVILIAN leadership who is responsible for starting and conducting and never finishing the war. It allowed Bush to continue hiding behind Petraeus, as well. MoveOn fell for it, actually, and gave them just what they want. I wish all of Congress would have walked out on the Cornyn vote, even those who voted No, but I also wish MoveOn had not backed the Dems into this corner in the first place. MoveOn has a right to its opinion and to express it, yes, but it is unfortunate it worked so well for the other side and not so well for ours.

I know you have a different opinion, but this is mine.

[madfloridian]

172. Don't worry, the media is on your side.

The NYT is questioning if they should have run it.

The fearful win again.

[Adelante]

173. I won't dignify that with a response

I will simply say goodbye now :hi:

[madfloridian]

174. You don't have to "dignify" anything. Choosing the word "dignify" was a put down.

Among many others in the thread.

[Adelante]

175. The politics of fear worked best for Bush - it's what you refuse to see

Bush was cowering in fear behind Petraeus and the Dems were ready to call him out in the open. Too bad MoveOn helped shield Bush from responsibility, strengthened the Republican myth that only they support the troops, at least temporarily damaged the Democrats on national security credibility, set back efforts to get the troops out of Iraq by wasting everybody's time on a juvenile and ineffective ad campaign. So the politics of fear did win, you are right, and MoveOn made a lot of money off it. Oh, well.

[madfloridian]

176. What a sad thing to hear from you.

I think this censure is going to split us all apart.

Look at the things said to me and about me because I said no one was speaking out and saying it was ok.

The dominoes are toppling now....and there may not be an end.

You are so surprising to me on this issue....you are blaming MoveOn because the Democrats caved again.

They were not about to call Bush out on anything. That is just not true.

[Tom Rinaldo]

178. MF, you are polarizing this discussion by lumping together everyone...

...who thinks that Move On reduced the effectiveness of their ad by running it under an emotionally laden pun based on the name of the General tasked with following Bush's policy - rather than sticking it straight to Bush who actually sets that policy, with those who want Move On to shut the fuck up and die, or at the least, with those who refuse to defend Move On's right to free speech. Our discussion needs to be more nuanced than that. There is more than one honorable position that one can take. Yours in my opinion is one of them.

[madfloridian]

180. In this case, Tom, your "nuance" led to censure by our Senate.

It is now no longer fun and games anymore. Now the Kerry folks and Clark folks are all over my butt spouting their guy's talking points.

When in reality, my post is 100% correct. Not "nuanced."

Tom, I admire you, so let's not go down the road of supporting what the Senate did.

It was cowardly.

I stand by every word in the OP.

[Tom Rinaldo]

198. I respect you also MD, and admire a great deal of what you do here on DU.

and I also fully condemn the Senate censure of Move On. That is kind of what I was trying to get at with my post. It may not have been your direct intent to suggest that I support what the Senate did when you said:

"Tom, I admire you, so let's not go down the road of supporting what the Senate did."

I can certainly think of a way to interpret that comment that would not mean that you were accusing me of having supported the Senate censure, I don't think you are accusing me of that, but it could be misunderstood. This is a very emotionally charged issue for all of us, for good reasons.

I don't expect you to back away from any word in your OP. It is an important point of view shared by many. But I felt called to respond with my perspective also.

Take care, and thank you for being among those who do care.

[LittleClarkie]

179. I didn't see them as not standing up for the right. I just saw it as a difference of opinion

Of course they had the right to use the word.

And folks have the right to say "I don't like the use of that word."

People have the right to say anything they want. And others have the right to go "ick".

Not that I really have a problem with the ad. Just standing up for the rights of both sides to express their opinions.

[madfloridian]

181. The Senate took an unprecedented step to censor an activist group

and the Clark and Kerry people who were against this Senate censure before they were for it are all over my butt. Why? Because Clark and Kerry both disapproved of the ad.

I stand by every word in my OP even if Clark and Kerry and the Senate disapprove.

We are so fearful that we are playing to their base, not ours.

[LittleClarkie]

182. I didn't think I was "all over your butt" and I wasn't against it before I was for it

I was just expressing my opinion. This is a discussion board, and I'm discussing. Why would that be a problem?

And that opinion has nothing to do with my support or non-support of either Kerry or Clark. Why make it partisan like that?

That was 2004. I support Dean now, and Clark, and Kerry and many others. And I will continue to do so despite you throwing attitude at me here. Really, please, get your head out of the last primary season. I don't think that way. Why do you still?

Did you want only approval of your OP, and anything else is an attack?

Censure means disapproval. It was an empty symbolic vote. I only stand up for their right to do so, that is all, even if I might myself disagree. Such is democracy.

How exactly is that being "all over your butt?"

[madfloridian]

183. Of course the Senate had the "right". They can do whatever they want.

That is the problem. They are sending a message to outspoken groups, message heard loud and clear.

They reprimanded their own, while refusing a vote to reprimand the other side. They really did that.

[Inuca]

187. Refusing a vote to reprimand the other side?

What are you talking about?

[madfloridian]

188. They voted down an amendment to reprimand the Swiftboaters...

then 22 Democrats voted to reprimand MoveOn's ad.

I would have to find the article.

[Inuca]

199. I know about that, but

I think that the only D that votes against that amendment was Feingold, just to correctly mark his disgust with the whole farce. I am 99.9% sure (and not time to check) that everybody else votes for it, even Lieberman. They even got two R votes on that. You cannot really blame the dems for not getting the famous 60 votes on this. Blame Cornyn and his cronies.

[madfloridian]

200. My point is that the 22 Dems should not have voted for censure

of MoveOn at all...much less since they failed to get the other vote through. They do have some power, you know.

[LoZoccolo]

202. "Why would that be a problem?"

See my post #132.

[Inuca]

186. And IMHO they were right

The ad was inappropriate. In its language and especially in its focus which should have been on the administration's policies and NOT on the general that implements them. I assume that the moveon people are fully aware of this, but for the sake of a cheap play on words they have triggered this maelstrom. It is good that they are getting lots of donations because of this, but this does not imply they were right. It simply means that many people agree with them and/or many people are EXTREMELY frustrated (I definitely belong in that last category). I cannot read the future, but I am afraid that in the (not so) long run the negative implications of all this may come to haunt us. And the dems in Congress were right in not aligning themselves with it. On the other hand I fully agree with Obama, Kerry, Feingold, maybe some others I do not recall who criticized Cornyn's amendment as the shameless political scam it was.

Incidentally, Clark is incorrect in his comments about what Hagel said. When he said dishonest, hypocritical, etc. he was referring to the "dirty trick" of sending a military man to do a political sell job, so he was criticizing the policy not the front man.

[madfloridian]

It's official....in this thread the Senate won hands down.

:shrug:

Not much else to say.

Wonder if they will make a list of proper words that won't offend?

[Sparkly]

190. Mad.... Many of us said we didn't like the Senate having that vote.

What would you like other posts to say? Could you write the post you'd like to see here, so I can understand?

[madfloridian]

191. Yes, some of you have said that.

After you said MoveOn used the wrong words.

This is an activist group which does controversy very well. I love controversy. I see nothing wrong with criticizing the military either when they are coordinating their report with the WH.

We are trying to silence the voices we need.

There is a fear in saying what Move On did was fine. I am saying it and getting blasted. Something is wrong with that.

[polichick]

192. Some of us have agreed with you but...

You only seem to notice the comments that disagree with yours ~ sometimes the glass is half full ya know.

[madfloridian]

193. Actually I did respond to your nice post last night.

Where you said the word betrayal hit too close to home. But mostly I am surprised at how many think a group that has always come out fighting should monitor their words.

Your post was nice.

[polichick]

194. I tried to support you again with #92...

There really are a lot of Dems who agree with you ~ MoveOn has raked in a huge amount of money to keep the ads coming, and many have donated for the first time this week. Keep the faith!

[madfloridian]

195. Thanks.

:hi:

[polichick]

197. 'welcome! :) nt

[Sparkly]

196. I don't intend to "blast."

Is there a way I can express a different opinion so that you won't feel attacked? I'm trying to make sure you do NOT feel attacked. We (you and I) agree on almost everything here. (I dare say most posters here do.)

BushCo wants to keep their war on; we agree the occupation should not continue.

BushCo put Petraeus up as a shield to hide behind, so they can accuse their critics of attacking Petraeus; I think we agree that it was a cowardly move for BushCo to use Petraeus for political cover.

Petraeus gave the rosy report BushCo wanted, despite all other accounts contradicting it; we agree it was BS.

MoveOn published the "Petraeus" "Betray Us" ad; we agree they had every right to do that, and that their main points were correct.

Republicans acted outraged, claiming it was "smearing the military" and practically dared Democrats to vote for a censure; we agree the outrage was fake, unjustified, and the vote should not even have happened. There are Democrats to blame for falling into that trap, too.

Now here is one place where we seem to disagree: I think MoveOn's ad would have been more effective if they'd have pointed the criticism straight at BushCo, rather than Petraeus. That's all. A picture of Bush hiding behind Petraeus, or of Petraeus as Bush's puppet, or just of Bush. A headline placing the blame on BushCo for setting up this charade.

I think we agree that debating the substance (or lack thereof) in Petraeus' report would be a much better use of media ink and airtime, Congress' time, and our time here than debating MoveOn's ad. This is the debate the GOP wanted, though. It seems to me they set up a target, and MoveOn shot at it. That's all I'm saying.

I hope that didn't come off as an attack on you. Did it?

[madfloridian]

189. It's official....in this thread the Senate won hands down.

:shrug:

Not much else to say.

Wonder if they will make a list of proper words that won't offend?

[ChiciB1]

203. It Really Makes Me SICK That We Can't Even Count On Those We "Thought"

were a little Liberal. I get it though, We're Screwed, and They Don't Even Care!

Why I haven't just given up by now is something I can't figure out... I really don't think we mater all that much, so why am I even trying?? I ask myself that more and more every single day. It's not going to be much longer though. If things keep going this way I don't see any reason to keep banging my head against the wall.

I told myself not to check in here today, I wish I would have listened... it just upsets me more and more!

[madfloridian]

204. I need to add another.

http://openleft.com/frontPage.do

Hillary condemns MoveOn ad

"I have voted against it. I mean, I've voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, which condemned that attack, and also condemned the attacks on Senator Cleland and Senator Kerry. I don't condone it. I voted to condemn it.
But again, I would underscore, let's be clear what's going on here. This is an effort to focus on an ad that I condemned and don't condone in order to avoid having to deal with the tough questions about our policy in Iraq."

And Matt's cryptic comment:

"I'm a little worried about upcoming fights over funding for Iraq, inasmuch as they might distract us from discussing the Moveon ad."

[LoZoccolo]

207. And you would need to add that why?

What is the point you are trying to make with this one? We all know how each senator voted already, and how they voted on the past resolutions. It seems to me that Hillary is at least consistent. How do you think she should have voted on the Cleland and Kerry ones?

[LanternWaste]

208. I think the leadership played it well...

I think the leadership played it well. The leadership gets the high-road for not being "mean and nasty", the message got more airplay than it would have had, and MoveOn saw a boost in contributions.

One possibility is that the Dem leadership is allowing/working with third-party messengers to stir up the hornets nest (and by golly-- those hornets got mad!) while maintaining enough distance to prevent themselves from getting stung.