Moving On Please
I have allowed a decent interval to pass before finally commenting on last week's MoveOn kerfuffle -- one that apparently now has a new and unfortunate twist.
Let's start backwards. The vote last week by the Senate to condemn the Petraeus/Betray Us ad was a definite new low point for what has demonstrated itself to be a morally bankrupt institution. This brazen act of foolishness and naked political demagogy surpasses the previous nadir, the midnight seance that had been convoked around the brain-dead Terry Schiavo (though, I guess there's a certain natural justice in a room full of the brain-dead expressing solidarity with a like soul).
It was also an act of supreme hypocrisy as it came on the heels of another vote by the very same assembly of flat-liners having voted to deny U.S. troops an equal portion of down time and combat duty.
The role played by nearly half the Democratic caucus in supporting the digusting motion proffered by their Republican "rivals" was, shall we say, nauseating? And we wonder why 100 million Americans don't vote. Or why they can't name their respective senators or representatives? Or why they don't give much of a piss in general about the political circus. Or why Democrats have proven themselves repeatedly to be a party of losers.
That said, none of the above was anything but wholly predictable. Which means one of two things: either MoveOn should also be listed as a) among the brain-dead or B) as reprehensibly cynical and self-serving.
I explain.
Theory A: MoveOn might indeed have 3.2 million contributors but, sorry fellow dreamers, in practice it is a highly centralized organization and much as any other lobby depends on a mere handful of top honchos to make its strategic decisions. Please don't argue that there was anything remotely consensual or consultative about the process that led to the writing of the New York Times ad which set off the firestorm.
By the way, I had exactly NO PROBLEM with the gist of the ad. Questioning the sincerity of the General's reporting process on Iraq, the report itself, its manipulative use by the administration etc. etc. all seems like totally fair game to me. And on point as well. But that is precisely the problem. All of these doubts were already present in the mainstream national debate immediately before, during, and after the General's two day congressional dog and pony show. The administration was swimming upstream on this gimmick from the get-go and a more temperately worded headline on the MoveOn ad might have helped facilitate the public skepticism.
Instead, its offensive wording, making the General's person and not the administration policy the target, handed the administration and the pro-war Republican zombies in Congress a sitting duck freebie way to divert and detour public attention away from the core issues of continuing the war. Or did I miss something? I find that not only be politically dumb but also rather arrogant. After all, because they do have 3 million contributors and therefore a nice pot of money, the 4 or 5 people making the decisions at MoveOn have a very loud political voice and, well, thanks very much guys for clouding up an argument that we were already winning. As I said, dumb. Or... not dumb but just plain ugly if Theory B is true.
Theory B: The grand strategists at MoveOn (who in their 10 year old life have yet to really win a major election campaign) might have very well known that the ad was going to provoke precisely the sort of Neanderthal reaction it did from the U.S. Senate (after all some of these MoveOn guys must have had SAT scores 4-500 points higher than my miserable 1075). In that case, they had to figure, in the best and worst traditions of any direct mail lobby (snail mail or electronic) that the ensuing donnybrook would be one more wonderfully polarizing opportunity to raise even more money! Just click over to their website and look at the top-of-the-fold glee. Here's what the top of it looks like:
Sign the Statement -- Donate Now. Could it be any clearer?
I don't want to be too petty. Even if Theory A is correct (i.e. MoveOn made a political mistake) you can't really blame them for at least trying to cash in on it. But if Theory B is operative, this would really, really suck. It would mean that as part of its longer term organizational and lobbying strategy MoveOn intended to provoke the diversion as part of its fund-raising strategy.
I'm not assigning even a suggestion of moral symmetry here, so please don't even dream of eating up my bandwidth with such baseless accusations in our comment section. No question that the action by the Republicans in the U.S. Senate, supported by a full half of the Democrats, far outweighs what MoveOn did on the grand scales of stinko. MoveOn is but a political lobby that has no power to fund an endless war nor to send anyone into the bloody maw of Iraq. It bears none of the immense responsibilities that currently mar both sides of the congressional aise for getting us into such a morass -- and continuing to fund it (despite all the throat-clearing about imaginary and unenforceable timetables).
But the whole MoveOn shtick around Petraeus also smells.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:33 am
I have read that after the Moveon.org “scandal” close to 500,000 additional people donated to moveon.org. This might fit the old Hollywood saying “there is no such thing as bad publicity”
I will para-phrase a joke I heard “the spineless democrats are now voting on how much of their money their giving up to the republicans”
September 24th, 2007 at 2:53 am
An excellent post, Marc, and making all the right points. In response to those 500,000 making donations, if true, those would of course be, um, people who already agree with MoveOn’s politics, rather than those converted by the political ad, which is fine for their coffers but not good for winning hearts and minds. What a waste of an opportunity to do so, if the ad had been more reasoned and less provocative. Of course the Congressional reaction will make it easier for MoveOn’s supporters to indulge in self-righteousness avoid seeing the real lesson in all this, as well as easier for Congress to ignore the message of the ad. In other words, a loser for the antiwar movement.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:55 am
that’s indulge in self-righteousness AND avoid seeing the real lesson, sorry.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Excellent post. I agree with every word.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Oh wait, I did find something to disagree about in Marc’s post. It is disrespectful to Neanderthals, who, after all, managed to survive throughout warm and cold climate swings much more dramatic than Homo sapiens has ever faced, and for more than 300,000 years, before going extinct–probably not because of the climate but due to being out competed by modern humans. Our species, on the other hand, has come close to blowing itself up several times and is currently devouring itself through warfare, if it gets the chance before global warming wipes out half of our numbers.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:47 am
The “new and unfortunate twist” isn’t new at all. The NY Times is part of the story of helping the left more than just reporting the story to help the left. Once they crossed that line, their credibility is gone.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:01 am
In the course of the post “nearly half” becomes “fully half”, and the impression is created, rather sneakaly, that the Dems voting on the resolution (disgraceful) was the same as their voting on the war (not disgraceful).
It’s also worth noting that the resolution was a lot of patriotic balderdash that did not mention “MoveOn” directly. This, of course, was never mentioned in the press. But, as these things always are, this “controversy” was as much a creation of the Media as it was the Republican shills who did the hyping. It’s the extent of the Dems pointless caving( polls show the public was treating this nonsense as just that) which really turns the stomach.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:01 am
All this may be true, even Nardy’s right-one-a-day broken clock…but it doesn’t take away from the fact that Move On are at heart cautious modertes, not truly antiwar. If they were, I’d be defending them more vociferously. As it is, I’m sure they believei n their own sincerity, but in reality, they are trying to play by the man’s rules -(and look how the man treats them.)
I expect and hope Move On move back to the leftp osition they had the first few years of the war.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:48 am
http://wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/move-s22.shtml
September 24th, 2007 at 8:36 am
I notice that people hear rarely debate a specific issue such as the actual content of the Moveon.org full page advertisement. Below is what the Moveon.org stated, I wish we would discuss if it’s a true or false statement. Is there an actual reduction of violence in Iraq or not?
From moveon.org
“Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an un-winnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years. “
September 24th, 2007 at 8:55 am
L.A. Resident: I hate to say the obvious BUT…. of course you are right. However, the substance of the MoveOn as MIGHT have had a better chance of being the debate if they hadnt distracted away from it by the dumb and insulting title they chose. You are making precisely my point.
For Idiots like K Nardy:
the number of Democrats who voted for the MoveOn condemnatiion was 22. The number of Democrats who voted for war authorization was, um, 22.
There are currently 51 U.S. Senators who are Democrats. Arguably 49 if we take out Lieberman and Sanders. Let’s call it 50. 22 out of 50 is 44% — or about half or nealy half. Which part of that dont u get, fool? You seem more riled by my pointing out the Democratic capitulation than by the capitulation itself. What a surprise. This is why we keep you around here. Your my Pet Democrat.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I understand that the total raised since the Senate’s hissy fit now exceeds 1.5 million. As ATRIOS wrote I wish they’ed condemn me too! I have no fault with the ad. In fact I hope they run a lot more. To those in this blog who are constantly calling for useless demonstrations (useless because a) they won’t be covered or covered only to show the “crazies” and b) Bush couldn’t care less and the GOP is his bitch) I say wake up and note that this ad got a lot of attention. The material in the ad did get noticed. We found out that the Noble Petraeus’ boss thought he was an ass-kissing chickenshit and, finally, check the polls – the Great Petraeus dog and pony show landed with a great big thud.
No, I’m sorry. MoveOn did its job. Its the craven Democrats who blew it. They should not have allowed it to come to the floor or, failing that, when the GOP Senators refused to go along with the Boxer substitute condemning all hit ads (like the Swift Boat Liars) they should have shrugged their shoulders and done what Obama did – abstain. Saying, in effect what a bogus waste of time. But they’re chickenshits too. Alas you have to fightr these people with the Democrats that you’ve got and the ones you want!
September 24th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I think this piece in today’s HUFFPO says it just about right. Its from Drew Westen, author of the “Political Brain.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/outflanked-in-iraq_b_65436.html
September 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I vote for “a”. And, as a Republican, I would like to express, to Moveon, my heartfelt gratitude.
Of course, they must realize that sometime, probably late next spring, Hillary is gonna Sister Soulja them in a way that won’t soon be forgotten.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Isn’t it ironic that L.A. Resident, who has claimed to be a “founding member” of MoveOn.org, wants people to address the “actual content” of the ad by MoveOn.org and which attacked Gen. Petraeus, although MoveOn.org published the ad before hearing the “actual content” of the General’s report to Congress?
September 24th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Jeeezzeee. somebody’s diet pill is wearing off early today. “Full half”, THE PHRASE YOU USED, I believe, would be fifty percent, oh tubby one. And as I posted, you wrote it accuratly the first time, then fudged in, enraptured no doubt in the glories of your own BULLSHIT. You ignore, of course, the other admittly obvious point I made… that the Dem/Repub voting on the somewhat more substantive issue of the war itself was almost, as always, strickly party line. I’d put it at at 95 to a hundred percent party line. Too bad, Lindsey Graham let you down again.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“as a Republican, I would like to express, to Moveon, my heartfelt gratitude”
Since you can thank neither Petraeus nor Bush for making the war more palatable to the majority of Americans – polling on Iraq hasn’t moved an inch – I guess that’s pretty much all guys like you have got left. You’re welcome to these “victories”. Learn to love them. I see that the next Big Event on your wish list is Hillary Clinton giving Orange Satan a cold shoulder on her way to the Oval Office. Again, if such a prospect is my worst impending nightmare as a Democrat, I can only express my heartfelt gratitude to the clusterfuck of chickenshits that constitute the contemporary GOP. The Democratic Party is, indeed, full of shit in a dozen different ways, so when most of America thinks your party’s disreputable, do-nothing scoundrel quotient exceeds that of Beltway denizens like Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, I guess the small things – like summoning a Congressional majority to wag their collective finger at an internet interest group for “infelicitous expression of a majority opinion” – seem like a very good day for you poor pathetic bastards.
I would never have made the argument that Edwards’ stalwart richard makes that Obama’s not sticking around DC for the MoveOn vote signified a matter of principle – frankly I have no idea and tend to doubt it. As an Obama partisan, my hunch is that he thought the vote was stupid, knew his single vote wouldn’t impact the outcome and figured a statement that put him at odds with the GOP’s absurd symbolic gesture was sufficient because he wanted to get back on his campaign schedule. I’d bet that if he had stayed in DC he wouldn’t have abstained “in person” but would have simply voted no, like Hillary and the rest of the Dems who aren’t reliably cowed by GOP boogymen.
I’m not just trying to prove that I haven’t been brainwashed by Obamarama – that’s my honest take. But I will agree with richard that an abstention by Democrats en masse would have both had a better pragmatic chance, given the waffly nature of so many Dems, of unifying more Senators in a bloc and it would have made a stronger statement of contempt for GOP stupidity, and probably more in line with the public mood of disgust with Beltway insider games, than an even split giving the GOP a win (which outside the netroots made most folks simply yawn and wonder why the hell a bloc of GOPers haven’t split off from Bush to help end the occupatioin). And if rlc is giving props for abstention, he should probably give them to Joe Biden as well.
Okay – now I’m gonna put my Obama cap back on.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Biden gets a up arrow for that but he gets a big down arrow for his push-polling suggesting that illary and Obama are “Too Liberal” and would drag the Dem ticket down in November. See KOS and TPM.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:10 am
K Nardy is really asking for a spanking.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Gee, reg. A little sensitive? Imagine how many acres of manic prose I could evoke if I REALLY touched a nerve.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Note: The “actual content” of what General Petraeus was poised to submit to Congress was easily available in the writings of, among others, Fred Kagan at the Weekly Standard and O’Hanlon/Pollack of Brookings, not to mention the runnings at the mouth of the Senate’s “yippee-ki-yi-yay” faction as represented by pathetic tools like Lieberman, Graham and McCain. The Petraeus Powerpoint summary was no surprise to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
I’d like to ask the Miserable Nitpickers exactly what in the MoveOn ad that is ascribed to Petraeus (violence is waning) or that they predict he’d say (some troop reductions) that was inaccurate.
Otherwise you’re just jerking yourself off.
Substantive argument PLEEEZE ! (I’m reminded of the Great Carbon Dating Debate).
September 24th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Oh Bob! OUCH !
September 24th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Richard – I don’t want to defend the Democrats dealing with MoveOn, but I would suggest to Drew Westin that if the GOPers were indeed outflanking anybody or “playing chess” while others “play checkers”, they would be picking up some political momentum for their own side. They’re not. Maybe when you’re losing big-time, a stall seems advantageous – but I don’t see any GOP brilliance in their attack on MoveOn. It plays well to their base – which I guess is significant from their perspective – but I don’t think they’re scoring any points with the public who in general seem frustrated by the Democrats and disgusted by the GOPers.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Marc writes: “But if Theory B is operative, this would really, really suck. It would mean that as part of its longer term organizational and lobbying strategy MoveOn intended to provoke the diversion as part of its fund-raising strategy.”
I think Max Weber called this “bureaucratic inertia” where sustaining the life of the organization becomes more important than doing what the org. was set up to do. And if I remember my Weber, it’s also a sign the organization itself is sliding into irrelevance.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
I notice that people hear rarely debate a specific issue such as the actual content of the Moveon.org full page advertisement. Below is what the Moveon.org stated, I wish we would discuss if it’s a true or false statement. Is there an actual reduction of violence in Iraq or not?
L.A. Resident it’s obvious you have not been here very much, There are no debates of any substance much less a specific issue, just a lot of conservative vs. liberal name calling, I think most readers here could run for congress. I was actually hoping to learn something here but was miserably disappointed. At it’s best this blog is entertaining when reading read some clever insults.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“Or did I miss something?”
Only that the majority of Americans really don’t care. Petraeus testified and didn’t changed anyone’s mind. I don’t get the NYTimes, didn’t see the add, and wouldn’t have heard about it if the Repubs didn’t raise such a fuss. And neither did most people. Washington seems to exist on another planet. I think it was mainly an attention getting move by MoveOn.org.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“The ‘actual content’ of what General Petraeus was poised to submit to Congress was”…not certain until he actually gave the report. If it was, he just should have stayed in Iraq and faxed it to Congress.
reg, the MoveOn ad was factually incorrect, reached false conclusions before the General’s report and Congressional questioning, and implied that a respected, currently serving general, unanimously approved by the Democrats, was a liar and traitor and not deserving of respect.
The ad may use weasle words like the Clinton’s do to cover themselves, but the intended message it imparted was clear and was what was received by the readers. Those guys could write cigarette ads that would convince you that nicotine is healthy.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Woody – I could prove you wrong, but since you don’t present any evidence for your argument and are incapable of anything other than trying to change the subject when you’re cornered with your own ignorance, I won’t waste my time. It would be treating you with a level of respect you don’t deserve. I keep forgettting that nobody takes you seriously. My bad…
September 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
MoveOn? I’ve moved on.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Actually, Balter, I started out with excess politness: “the impression is created, rather sneakaly, that the Dems voting on the resolution (disgraceful) is the same as the Dems voting on the war (not disgraceful)”
Anyone here want to dispute that with a stright face? It’s more inherently dishonest writing from Cooper; a cute little trick everyone can see through and makes his little
disaples feel all wet and dirty in their pants. Go spank yourself, hard on.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
reg, I learned long ago that you reject the validity of any and all evidence that is contrary to your prejudices. Are you deserving of respect? Hardly. But, remember, you didn’t ask for evidence of what bothered conservatives about the ad, so why expect it or act haughty when it isn’t forthcoming? Also, you cannot prove me wrong. You can cherry pick articles but cannot do adequate analysis of them to get to the truth.
The ad draws a line in the sand for conservatives and liberals. Cross the line to MoveOn and you favor the position of peace by defeat–and, a very short peace followed by long-term suffering. Stick with the conservatives and we will have peace with victory.
I don’t care that much about the MoveOn ad except for the opening that it gives to expose the Democrats for the scum that they are. MoveOn has been discredited so much, that it’s mainly anti-American radicals who support it and accept its views. Pretty soon, with the ineptness of MoveOn’s strategies, the American people will understand and reject what they support and the Democrats who go along with them.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
The last refuge of scoundrels…
September 24th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
TO WOODY:
I checked out your blog… you were obviously raised in a strict authoritarian household and have issues of transference.
REG:
I checked out your site as well. It made me crave cashasa and the beaches of Bahia
A note of advice to both of you: the best way to argue with your opponents is to completely understand their point of view.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
“It made me crave cashasa and the beaches of Bahia”
That’s thanks to Randy Paul, who’s the SiteMeister and has done a consistently great job of offering a window “south”…
Frankly, “brain”, I understand Woody only too well. His “point of view” is doesn’t involve engaging argument forthrightly or with evidence. He slides his arguments when he’s losing them on the facts. The blog Woody posts at routinely slimes veterans (see the ugly crackpot smear of Jack Murtha – with the nauseating pretense of it’s author hiding behind the name of a long deceased, highly decorated Marine Lt. General – by scrolling down a bit) and attacks military men who don’t toe the BushCo line (for example impugning Anthony Zinni because he was a war critic with ad hominem that went well beyond simply disputing his views, just as they slime Murtha and John Kerry in ways that make MoveOn seem moderate in criticizing Petraeus’ propaganda-fest.) There’s zero integrity involved and absolutely nothing worthy of respect. Unless you understand how debased and delusional some of these folks are – I’ve been listening to their incredibly off-the-mark reassurances about how well the war in Iraq has been going for years, being called “anti-American” for my efforts at dragging some facts in their direction – and how far beyond honest argument, you’re going to constantly be at a disadvantage in dealing with them.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Moving on to more pressing issues
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2007/09/neither-bollinger-nor-ahmadinajad.html
September 24th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
The claim that patriotism is “the last refuge of scoundrels” is actually the last futile refuge for subversives.
Modern-day liberalism – which is really socialism or eventually communism – is unpatriotic. Those activists on both sides of the aisle who lobby for the implementation of liberalism are not patriots. They are enemies of the United States and will fight to stop America from being what it is intended to be.
the_brain, I am only a contributor to the blog site that I referenced, whereas reg is a detractor on the site of another equally reality challenged person.
I grew up in a household with four kids and all of us turned out differently, and none of us considered it authoritarian. I can discuss issues with my siblings and understand them, because they don’t start cursing and ranting and losing control of their tempers when put on the defense.
I decided in my adult life that the situational ethics that I see from liberals was not honest and that absolutes of right and wrong, despite one’s desired results, was always best.
I don’t lose arguments with reg, as he consistently takes indefensible positions and tries to justify them with quotes from people with other indefensible positions, like at the top. I quit giving him evidence, as it was apparent that he considered all evidence that contradicted him as being unacceptable. How convenient. reg still thinks that the moon landing took place in Hollywood.
On veterans, wouldn’t it have solved a lot of questions if John Kerry has actually signed the Form 180 so that everyone could see for themselves whether he was telling the truth about his wounds for discharge within three months of action and whether or not he was dishonorably discharged, as all evidence suggests? Is it wrong to bring up such questions to those who wish to run our country? Is it wrong to expect a Senator and presidential candidate to agree to sign such a form and then to actually do it?
At least no one that I know questions a veteran until that veteran has had a chance to speak, unlike reg and Gen. Petreus.
To determine the content of GM’s site, you would hardly get a fair picture from reg. To understand the site where reg posts, you must “suspend all faith in the truth.”
September 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Well, Marc is blocking my comments. How convenient for reg. I may try one last time if this goes through.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Okay, I’ll take out the html codes….
The claim that patriotism is “the last refuge of scoundrels” is actually the last futile refuge for subversives.
“Modern-day liberalism – which is really socialism or eventually communism – is unpatriotic. Those activists on both sides of the aisle who lobby for the implementation of liberalism are not patriots. They are enemies of the United States and will fight to stop America from being what it is intended to be.”
the_brain, I am only a contributor to the blog site that I referenced, whereas reg is a detractor on the site of another equally reality challenged person.
I grew up in a household with four kids and all of us turned out differently, and none of us considered it authoritarian. I can discuss issues with my siblings and understand them, because they don’t start cursing and ranting and losing control of their tempers when put on the defense.
I decided in my adult life that the situational ethics that I see from liberals was not honest and that absolutes of right and wrong, despite one’s desired results, was always best.
I don’t lose arguments with reg, as he consistently takes indefensible positions and tries to justify them with quotes from people with other indefensible positions, like at the top. I quit giving him evidence, as it was apparent that he considered all evidence that contradicted him as being unacceptable. How convenient. reg still thinks that the moon landing took place in Hollywood.
On veterans, wouldn’t it have solved a lot of questions if John Kerry has actually signed the Form 180 so that everyone could see for themselves whether he was telling the truth about his wounds for discharge within three months of action and whether or not he was dishonorably discharged, as all evidence suggests? Is it wrong to bring up such questions to those who wish to run our country? Is it wrong to expect a Senator and presidential candidate to agree to sign such a form and then to actually do it?
At least no one that I know questions a veteran until that veteran has had a chance to speak, unlike reg and Gen. Petreus.
To determine the content of GM’s site, you would hardly get a fair picture from reg. To understand the site where reg posts, you must “suspend all faith in the truth.”
September 24th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Oh well, it may be approved later by Marc. Here’s something new.
Rasmussen Reports
Monday, September 24, 2007
Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times “that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us.†A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that “stunts like the MoveOn.org ad†hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact.
Twenty-three percent (23%) of American adults have a favorable opinion of MoveOn.org while 39% have an unfavorable opinion. Thirty-eight percent (38%) don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or the other.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“Well, Marc is blocking my comments.”
Bring ‘em on !
What are the polls on something that really matters…like the sorry little shit you’ve been hyping for years, your crackpot sick war, or the Republican fucks who are obstructing Congress by demanding a 67 vote majority and obstruct any change in the policies of a cabal that most Americans consider reckless, irresponsible and incompetent.
You prove yourself irrelevant to any serious discourse on the war or any other issue that matters. Cling to the MoveOn issue. It’s all you’ve got.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Also, your “patriotism” is partisan poison – nothing more and nothing less. You’re a scab on America’s ass.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Why discuss facts and policy and the dynamics of regional and global politics when you can instead proffer a light charge of treason?
(Etymologically, “betrayal” and “treason” are closely related, to say the least.)
Because, of course, it whips up the idealogues and generates funds.
Only a pure ideological crank would deny that war puts money in the pockets of the Pentagon and military contractors.
But turn the discussion to who, exactly, profits from inflammatory peacenik charges and watch the LEFT shut down.
Can anyone tell me how much money Moveon.org has made in donations since they ran their disgusting, contemptible ad?
Can anyone tell me how much money the top ten moneymakers at Moveon.org pull down?
What about their expense accounts?
How about some some of those charts that show how X went to school with Y before taking a job with Y’s cousin’s company, which is currently making a major pitch to Time-Warner, etc., etc., etc..
And where, gentle reader, does your money come from?
September 25th, 2007 at 12:29 am
reg, the MoveOn ad was , reached false conclusions before the General’s report and Congressional questioning, and implied that a respected, currently serving general, unanimously approved by the Democrats, was a liar and traitor and not deserving of respect.
What FACTS were factually incorrect? Give a specific example such as XXX numbers of Iraqi were not killed in XXX city.
Your meaning less comment is just like saying the weather was pleasant instead of the temperature was XXX degrees and XXX relative humidity therefore the weather was pleasant.
There is no FACT to debate in your very general, meaning less comments, why don’t we debate which Miss Universe pageant is the most beautiful, just another purely objective comment.
You guys here are pretty pathetic, I’m would put it at about the 92% pathetic factor.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:31 am
reg, the MoveOn ad was factually incorrect,
Sorry comment above was cut-off.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Dept. of Easy Answers to Wildly Tendentious Questions -
“turn the discussion to who, exactly, profits from inflammatory peacenik charges and watch the LEFT shut down. Can anyone tell me how much money Moveon.org has made in donations since they ran their disgusting, contemptible ad?”
$1,705,126.47 as of 1:27 am, PST, 9/25/07. The figure is constantly updated on their decidedly NOT “shut down” donation web page.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:31 am
reg, I learned long ago that you reject the validity of any and all evidence that is contrary to your prejudices
Someone has a self-awareness problem.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:39 am
I don’t accept polls taken from stupid people as something to direct foreign and military policy. I just provided the results without comment, since you guys live off of them.
I don’t remember the number, but something like 45% of those who took the poll admitted that they knew very little or nothing about the issue–a lot like some of you who pretend to “know everything from the beginning.”
Now, why should I tell you what’s inaccurate about the ad when you wouldn’t agree if God himself told you? It’s a waste of time. However, I pointed out problems with the ad and the intentional misconceptions that it left to the uninformed reader. MoveOn can bully and deceive as well as the Clinton’s.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Hey, I’m going to try to post my “awaiting moderation” comment agains without the html codes.
- – -
The claim that patriotism is “the last refuge of scoundrels†is actually the last futile refuge for subversives.
“Modern-day liberalism – which is really socialism or eventually communism – is unpatriotic. Those activists on both sides of the aisle who lobby for the implementation of liberalism are not patriots. They are enemies of the United States and will fight to stop America from being what it is intended to be.â€
the_brain, I am only a contributor to the blog site that I referenced, whereas reg is a detractor on the site of another equally reality challenged person.
I grew up in a household with four kids and all of us turned out differently, and none of us considered it authoritarian. I can discuss issues with my siblings and understand them, because they don’t start cursing and ranting and losing control of their tempers when put on the defense.
I decided in my adult life that the situational ethics that I see from liberals was not honest and that absolutes of right and wrong, despite one’s desired results, was always best.
I don’t lose arguments with reg, as he consistently takes indefensible positions and tries to justify them with quotes from people with other indefensible positions, like at the top. I quit giving him evidence, as it was apparent that he considered all evidence that contradicted him as being unacceptable. How convenient. reg still thinks that the moon landing took place in Hollywood.
On veterans, wouldn’t it have solved a lot of questions if John Kerry has actually signed the Form 180 so that everyone could see for themselves whether he was telling the truth about his wounds for discharge within three months of action and whether or not he was dishonorably discharged, as all evidence suggests? Is it wrong to bring up such questions to those who wish to run our country? Is it wrong to expect a Senator and presidential candidate to agree to sign such a form and then to actually do it?
At least no one that I know questions a veteran until that veteran has had a chance to speak, unlike reg and Gen. Petreus.
To determine the content of GM’s site, you would hardly get a fair picture from reg. To understand the site where reg posts, you must “suspend all faith in the truth.â€
September 25th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Didn’t work. Oh, well. Maybe Mark York or steve will let me post on their sites.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:53 am
I simply asked you what MoveOn claimed Petraeus himself claimed that he did not, in fact, claim – in the light of your patently absurd statement that Petraeus’ presentation was some sort of secret that no one had already heard coming from the direction of his Baghdad dog-and-pony shows or other “surge” apologists who were part of the BushCo orchestra. Petraeus’ didn’t say a single thing – other than his initial response to John Warner that he couldn’t muster evidence that the war itself made America safer – which wasn’t fully anticipated. Forget the other details of the ad – the question was straightforward and specifici. You can’t even answer a simple question if it doesn’t conform to your insane bigotry. As to Petraeus, his report was clearly phony and scripted – which was evident when he asserted that no one at the White House had been told what he was going to say. Only a fool could consider that claim credible.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Woody: reg, I learned long ago that you reject the validity of any and all evidence that is contrary to your prejudices.
reg: As to Petraeus, his report was clearly phony and scripted – which was evident when he asserted that no one at the White House had been told what he was going to say. Only a fool could consider that claim credible.
See.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Last time. I’ll break up my moderaqted comment.
The claim that patriotism is “the last refuge of scoundrels†is actually the last futile refuge for subversives.
“Modern-day liberalism – which is really socialism or eventually communism – is unpatriotic. Those activists on both sides of the aisle who lobby for the implementation of liberalism are not patriots. They are enemies of the United States and will fight to stop America from being what it is intended to be.â€
September 25th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Marc is still blocking my longer comments. I don’t know what the magic word is that gets caught by his filters. Maybe it’s patrioti……..
September 25th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I’m glad you said it.
My first thought was that a Republican operative planted in MoveOn coined the ad to provide material to beat up on Democratic contenders (in Usenet, especially on Hillary). But I’m getting too paranoid, old age I guess.
Your take is reasonable.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Woody Says:
Now, why should I tell you what’s inaccurate about the ad when you wouldn’t agree if God himself told you? It’s a waste of time. However, I pointed out problems with the ad and the intentional misconceptions that it left to the uninformed reader. MoveOn can bully and deceive as well as the Clinton’s.
Here we go again; this is the type of comment that is utterly useless in content and substance. I can see you are not a student of math or science where one deals in proofs and theorems.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Woody – can you explain to me how Petraeus arrived at the data to support his assertions that the “surge” was driving Iraqi casualties lower and producing a significant change in the security situation ?
That’s okay.
Neither can he…
September 25th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I’m really sorry your long posts aren’t getting through Woody. I had no intention of reading them but I thought I would follow your methodology of counting the number of words so I could report back to the other commenters. That’s fascinatiing stuff…
September 26th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Marc is still blocking my longer comments. I don’t know what the magic word is that gets caught by his filters. Maybe it’s patrioti……..
The “magic†word which is trapped by Marc’s filter is “idiot†and its many synonyms;
Ass, dope, blockhead, dimwit, imbecile, ding-bat, jack-ass, jerk, moron, nincompoop, schmuck, turkey, twit, and last and definitely not least “WOODYâ€
September 26th, 2007 at 8:12 am
reg, don’t you see? If you agree with someone or something that they say, then they are automatically correct–no proof needed. If you don’t agree with them, then they are wrong, despite their support and simply because you think you are always right.
When you want evidence for a position contrary to yours and it’s provided, you discount it because, no matter how well presented, it has to be a lie if it doesn’t follow your twisted and arrogant way of thinking.
If I say that the MoveOn ad is misleading and that it is disrespectul and then you say it isn’t, then why should I go any further and waste my time proving something that you are too closed minded to accept under any circumstances?
Rather than me telling you any further what’s wrong with MoveOn’s ad (all of it), why don’t you gather all of your left-wing sources to tell me why it’s completely accurate? Then, I can show how gullible, emotional, radical, or analytically challenged that you actually are.
BTW, I don’t consider Gen. Petraeus to be a liar, as you do based upon what you only suspect and don’t know, and I don’t pick and choose what I want to believe from our commander in Iraq based upon merely what suits me.
I hope this is clear enough for you, if your early drug use hasn’t affected your brain too much.
On the length of comments (this one necessarily long to help you comprehend), you prove that left-wingers need a lot of words to try to explain what cannot be explained and use a lot of words at other times to confuse people who accept that length of comment and substance are equivalent.
Your positions are almost always wrong and are deliberately misleading–unless you are just plain stupid.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Is there anyone on the site that has actually done this?
March 11th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Do you guys have a recommendation section, i’d like to suggest some stuff
June 15th, 2009 at 6:49 am
The Most important challenge GM faces is to win back the trust of the tax payers. Giving away billions of tax payer money is not going to go under good sights of the consumers