To paraphrase an old movie...
"I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUC*ING [WAR]!"
Posted by LongDay at September 21, 2007 05:25 PMThe ad was a bad idea because it put the focus on Petraeus instead of Bush. Bush wants Petraeus to be the focus. He also wants to hide behind Petraeus and continue kicking the can down the road.
The problem is Bush. The problem has always been Bush. The resolution simply feeds the Republican feeding frenzy. Creating distractions is the only game Republicans have left. So I have no problem with Edwards' take on all this. Edwards is focused. A lot of people out there are in danger of losing their focus. Republicans are counting on that.
Posted by Craig at September 21, 2007 05:31 PMYeah, lots of bad ideas don't merit senate condemnation.
Posted by Stella at September 21, 2007 06:12 PMI would have loved to hear just one, one, politician mention the swiftboating of American heros. These are the stupidest politicians we have ever had in the Congress. They can't even figure out the obvious responses.
Posted by Judith at September 21, 2007 06:43 PMAsk and you will recieve, Judith...
"Once Republicans started circulating an amendment that would blast MoveOn for "impugning the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the U.S. Armed Forces," Democrats wrote their own version that criticized the MoveOn ad but also denounced Republicans for attacking the military record of Kerry in 2004 through the Swift boat ads.
Between the two measures, nearly every member of the Senate had repudiated MoveOn, including Democratic presidential contender Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama, who both voted for the Democratic version that did not include MoveOn's name but said there had been an "unwarranted personal attack" on Petraeus."
WashPost today
As I said on another thread here. All three of your front runners now repudiate MoveOn for it's "unwarranted personal attack" on General Petraeus. General Wes Clark, ret. , also says the ad was wrong in an interview with Matt Stoller. That the General is truthful. Many here said his endorsement of HC gives her the power of the military voice. John Kerry even said this ad was over the top wrong.
I wonder who speaks for the Edwards family with this supposed conflict on the MoveOn ad?
Posted by peter at September 21, 2007 07:16 PMSorry, John, but you've locked yourself in this tiny little cognitive dissonance box that let's in good Hillary vibes, but attacks logical positiions of Hillary's opponents.
My very first reaction to the ad was that it was childish in the extreme, but the bill, on the other hand, to censure the ad was...cultish. How can Edwards appeal to you, John? Answer, there is NOTHING, nothing he can do, now that you have chosen Hillary, that can appeal to you, no matter how logical he, or Obama or whoever is, because your mind is closed, because you have locked your seeking mind against such an open, analytical process. Whatever Hillary does is to be worshipped, and what is proposed by others is to be automatically attacked, no matter how logical.
One thing I will say about the MoveOn ad. Dang, here my lack of linguistic skills shows. But there's some process that has happened with the ad, only I'm not sure what the word to describe the process is. Ok, let me describe it this way. In making sorghum syrup, some old-timers around here add clay to "clarify" it, clay which bonds with the sediment in the syrup, sinking clay and sediment to the bottom, leaving a nice, clear syrup. I suppose another word that could be used is "distill", but that word doesn't quite fill the bill. What the ad has done is to separate the moderates from the frustrated liberal base. And I like that, even though I didn't like the ad. But, I suspect that the ad may have made a Republican win possible again in the next election. But...maybe the pot needs to continue to boil a bit longer. Got a feeling the pro-Dem polls are fickle at this point, still may turn on the Dems. Karma builds.
Posted by Julie at September 21, 2007 07:27 PM~ahem~ Let me "clarify". The ad was bad, the bill was bad. There is room for a broad range of opinion in between these two ridiculous issues.
Posted by Julie at September 21, 2007 07:41 PM"Petraeus' favorable rating edged up slightly, to 52%, in the final days before his congressional testimony on the situation in Iraq. Now, after last week, his post-testimony favorable rating has jumped to 61%. Petraeus' name identification -- the percentage of Americans who know enough about him to have an opinion -- also jumped from 69% in early September to 83% this past weekend."
Gallup 9/19/2007
Maybe they're starting Julie.
Craig, you are absolutely right. The ad was a bad idea. It allowed the Republicans to beat the ole patriotism drum one more time. They are very good at that, so why do we keep throwing them soft balls right down the middle? It would not have taken a genius to figure out that this is what would happen.
Posted by PretzelsOne at September 21, 2007 08:20 PMElizabeth and John are not the same person. She has no problem with same sex marriage and he does. On this as she grew up on military bases, it's not surprising that they would be more conservative on this issue, not very enlightened, but merely reflecting her personal history. Not sure why this would be a big deal.
Julie - did you read Lakoff's analysis of the MoveOn ad? So much of what today we take for granted as being "natural" was forbidden not long ago and if not for people pushing the envelope and being edgy or outrageous tne forbidden would remain forbidden today. I'm become very cautious about criticizing the edgy when I initially don't care for it. It give it a little time to sink in and consider all the possible upsides to it; sometimes I conclude that there aren't any and then I can criticize it. Catalysts for change aren't easy to recognize when they first appear - if they were, change would be easier and much faster.
Posted by Marie at September 21, 2007 08:21 PMQuick definitions (clarify)
verb: make clear by removing impurities or solids, as by heating (Example: "Clarify the butter")
No, Marie, I hadn't read it, but I just now googled it. Seems to me what it all boils down to is that what he is talking about is fighting fire with fire. One technique that cults use is "loading the language", something that the Karl Rove reicher cult has been very good at. What Lakoff is talking about is turning that cult technique around, and loading the language in favor of the new Dem cult. Arggggh!
Posted by Julie at September 21, 2007 09:03 PMLet's not focus on the MoveOn ad. It plays right into the hands of the republi-cons. Instead, focus on the what Edwards real message was about our weak ass Dems.
Betraeus, Petraeus, another bu$h sycophant, that's all that matters!
Posted by Seven of Six at September 21, 2007 09:06 PMThe ad was a bad idea because it put the focus on Petraeus instead of Bush. Bush wants Petraeus to be the focus.
And Herr Cheney would love to have anyone or anything take the focus off his little war and lunatic tendencies.
Posted by tempus at September 21, 2007 09:29 PMThe Dems tying the resolution to Swifties (and failing to win passage) was in the really fine print of all the reporting I saw. The political idea in their response was reasoned, and it was swamped in patriotic fervor. My sense is that Petraeus is viewed as a military pro who was tasked with an impossible job (supporting a dumb President and a dumb policy) and so the public generally resents the "betrayal" word. The boosterism of Petraeus prior to the Surge (the "golly, I think it could work" PR he supplied) seems under-reported and also generally forgiven by the public. Acting Army leadership are supposed to salute the flag no matter who waves it (the common view). They are not elected officials, why pick on them? Elizabeth's opinion on the ad was just being decent and civil (which is her reputation), but it is also very North Carolina which is home to large military bases. And finally, John's view as I understand it, was about the Senate wasting its time on criticizing political interest groups, not about Petraeus proper.
Posted by gtash at September 21, 2007 10:45 PMA nation still in search of ONE SINGLE NATIONAL PROGRESSIVE POLITICIAN to tell the right wing noise machine to go fuck itself.
*crickets*
Posted by Sharkbabe at September 21, 2007 10:48 PM
Julie - that's not what he's saying at all. There seems to be a common misimpression that Lakoff is coming at this a question of language - that impression is probably because of the way he presents his concepts. His research and discipline is in cognitive psychology and not linguistics. It is closely relating to learning theory. Maybe one day I'll take a crack at trying to explain it, but it's not easy to do because it's like a physicist trying to explain quarks to me.
Posted by Marie at September 22, 2007 01:09 AMSay it isn't so! Couples with differing points of view and positions! Only George and Pickles Bush agree 100% of the time. But then, Pickles is the ultimate Stepford wife, so why would she disagree with her genius husband?
Posted by Christopher at September 22, 2007 02:41 AMThe Betrayus nickname was not invented by MoveOn, but a much older description applied to Petraeus by military units even before he made General.
Petraeus is a political rather than a military general. He became engaged to the daughter of the Superintendent of West Point before graduation, and married her shortly thereafter. This sycophantic behavior has marked his career, and his outright lying makes a mockery of military honor. The wretch should be in a stockade for perjury.
Posted by m at September 22, 2007 06:51 AMi rejoined MoveOn and donated money / so there / fuck the whole damn system / it broke and wont be fixed for a long time / i may not even live to see it
Posted by Katherine Hunter at September 22, 2007 08:29 AMAnyone who attacks the MoveOn ad is doing Rove's dirty work. As John said in his post - they slam actual heros like Cleland, Kerry, McCain with impugnity while their proxies like Mann Coulter threaten the lives of Judges with no comment from the Rove Team. My view of this issue and the dems who voted to condemn the ad are the latest post where you go if you click on theExile......
Posted by theExile at September 22, 2007 11:17 AMAnyone who attacks the MoveOn ad is doing Rove's dirty work.
That's just more of that "you're either with us or against us" bullcrap that the Bush Bullies have been feeding us for 6 years.
Posted by Julie at September 22, 2007 11:35 AMAnyone who attacks the MoveOn ad is doing Rove's dirty work.
Agree that Karl Rove is happy when some Dems attack the MoveOn ad. I don't think it's analogous to "you're either with us or against us." It's a natural revulsion to the seemingly endless self-defeating behavior by too many Dems to appease right-wingers (please prove me wrong). No, I don't think most of the hapless Dem appeasers want to aid Rove in attaining his goals, but this seems to be what is (still) happening. Are those Dem pols who condemn MoveOn truly offended by the ad, or merely repeating the idiotic "strategy" that induced so many of them to capitulate to Bush over and over again since, uh 2001?
Too many brainwashed Democrats formulating political strategy while mired in the cesspool that is the right wing framing/set-of-assumptions.
A nation still in search of ONE SINGLE NATIONAL PROGRESSIVE POLITICIAN to tell the right wing noise machine to go fuck itself.
So true. Why is this so hard for Reid & Pelosi and some of the commentators on this thread to understand? In fact, IS THERE EVEN ONE SINGLE NATIONAL POLITICIAN WHO IS PROGRESSIVE ENOUGH to tell the right wing noise machine to go fuck itself? This needs to happen.
Posted by TrainWreck at September 22, 2007 11:44 PMBetrayus or Bush's pet (Raeus). He is still the grand incompetent who lost billions of dollars in Iraq, lost hundreds of thousands of weapons, and commanded the destruction of the once greatest army in the world. And let's not even mention the humanitarian disaster for which he is responsible. His "Democracy Diarrhea" is spreading to Baghdad.
The wonderful MOVEON add did not trigger the mock venom spewed by the right. We've seen their nonsense for the last 27 years. And need I remind anyone of the Johnson nuclear bomb ad when he was running against Goldwater. It's politics.
The Betrayus ad was appropriate, and defined the man as the conniving incompetent he really is. And the donations to MOVEON show many real Americans appreciated it. The republi-cons are cowards and bullies. They deserve this ad and many more like it. And Betrayus deserves the derision for his complicity with the Buschco regime.
Posted by phidipides at September 23, 2007 09:49 AMI'm sick and tired of Democrats clutching their pearls and sniffing their hankie whenever the ReThugs attack.
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 24, 2007 07:38 AM