I’ve been awfully busy in the past couple of weeks — family health problems and the new issue of VQR have kept me tied up — so I haven’t really been able to follow the fuss over MoveOn.org’s ad criticizing General David Petraeus. With all of the hand-wringing about the ad, I’d assumed that there was a lot more the story. After all, conservatives call prominent elected Democrats traitors all the time. “Treason” is a word that’s tossed around routinely by the pundits on the AM dial. But, no, Michael Kinsley explains in Time that I haven’t missed anything. It turns out that politicians have just picked up the same hyperventilating tactic long employed by bloggers: I demand an apology for that thing that somebody else unrelated to you said that you haven’t condemned adequately that had nothing to do with me! In some ways it’s good to see bloggers influencing the political process, but this isn’t one of those ways.
Comments are closed.
How much money from Moveon.org has flowed directly into the campaign warchests of Democrats? I’d say that factor alone makes Moveon.org a little more than “somebody else unrelated to” a large number of Democrats — particularly those at the vangaurd of the party.
“Criticizing General David Petraeus…” Come on, man, they intimated that he was a traitor. This guy who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate and made his congressional soap-box interrogators look silly and stupid, they want to brand a traitor?
But hey, much like I’m heartened by Dan Rather’s lawsuit, if MoveOn wants to run this up the flagpole, I say good luck.
Somehow, I just don’t think General Petraus gives a rats-ass what some interest group has to say about him in a newspaper ad. He’s got a job to do and he’s doing his job.
And, I just don’t believe that any of these oh-so-sensitive political opportunists whining and demanding apologies and denounciations have any motivation other than scoring “gotcha points”. The belly-aching and kvetching has grown tiresome. Attack. Counter-attack. Attack. Counter-attack.
Do I really have to make a list of all of the Democratic leaders that prominent Republicans have called traitors and its various synonyms? It seems like rather a pointless exercise — you and I both know that there are surely dozens (hundreds?) of instances in recent history. The only difference is that Democrats don’t get their panties in a knot over it.
So many brave Republicans standing up for General David Petraeus’ honor. Can maybe some of them stand up for the Constitution and demand that the elected Commander in Chief get his appointed civilian leadership down to the People’s Chamber and testify under oath about our great and successful strategy in Iraq?
Hope those problems aren’t too serious, Waldo. Best wishes to you and your family.
Oh, no, certainly not particularly serious. I don’t mean to be vague, but my family is happiest when their personal lives are kept off of my blog. :) Thanks!
So…if you’re in General Petraeus’ corner, I suppose that means you’re not exactly in the corner occupied by his direct superior, Admiral Fallon, the US CENTCOM commander.
Admiral Fallon’s criticism of his subordinate officer is reportedly scathing.
An interesting read: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235
I think well-known patriots like Bill “I loathe the military” Clinton and John “sorry about that Haditha business” Murtha would get their shorts in a knot over being called traitors.
the interesting thing is that the play on the General’s name was apparently fairly common among his troops in the 10st Airborne while he commanded them. Now, does that mean all of them, who were doing some actual fighting, should also be condemned by the motion introduced by John (dumber than a fence post) Cornyn?
Oh, and before you get your panties in a bunch, the description of Cornyn comes from a long time acquaintance who is a fairly influential Republican consultant in Cornyn’s home state.
I’m confused. So you’re saying that neither President Clinton nor Rep. Murtha have ever been labeled “traitors”? Or you’re doing so now through sarcasm? Or that they have been called that, and that Democrats responded much like Republicans are responding to the situation currently at hand? Or none of these things?
When the NRA, an organization that’s done a lot more to elect Republicans than MoveOn has for Democrats, issued a fundraising letter a few years ago calling ATF agents “jack-booted thugs” or some such George HW Bush publicly called them out and resigned his membership. Just sayin’.
“When the NRA, an organization that’s done a lot more to elect Republicans than MoveOn has for Democrats, issued a fundraising letter a few years ago calling ATF agents “jack-booted thugs” or some such George HW Bush publicly called them out and resigned his membership. Just sayin’.”
Yay!!! You found ONE instance! 2 points for you!
Now I wonder w how Judge and friends would react if MoveOn rewrote the song God bless America to:
“Why should God bless America?”
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/09/why_should_god_bless_america.html
Me thinks their heads would explode.
And that’s just another instance of Republicans getting fussy when somebody takes a shot at one of their sacred cows, much like the reaction to MoveOn.org’s ad.
Well, I thought the MoveOn ad was obnoxious and, from what I have read about Petraeus, pretty unfair. What’s more, I think the various Dem. presidential candidates missed an opportunity by not vocally criticizing it. I think it would have been smart politicking.
The GOP whining about it is hilarious hypocrisy though. Remember the attack ads comparing Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden? How about all of the nasty things that have been said about Murtha? As Waldo has pointed out, there have been so many instances where Republican politicians or pundits have smeared critics as various flavors of ‘traitor’ that it would take much too much space to mention them all here. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
I’m not familiar with any ad comparing Max Cleland to bin Laden. Please provide a link.
As for the unindicted ABSCAM co-conspirator whose campaign contributors have an uncanny ability to have earmarks steered their way and who suggested we redeploy forces from Iraq to Okinawa (wtf?), I, uh, what was your point again?
Did you link to the wrong video? That ad doesn’t compare anyone to anything. It has a quick image of Bin Laden along with other “terrorism” images, but only as a graphic to accompany the message “As America faces terrorists…”
The only point to that ad was that McClelland says he supports Bush on terrorism issues, but votes against him.
Was there some other ad you meant to link?
Come on, Waldo! Is that all you got? Some Chambliss ad pointing out Cleland voted against the President which, I take it, was not very popular in Georgia in ’02? It’s laughable but illustrative of the lengths the left will go to in order to claim they’ve been unfairly smeared by Republicans. Whatever.
As bad as I feel for Cleland sustaining devestating injuries in Vietnam, those injuries didn’t guarantee him a lifetime seat in the US Senate. In fact, if I recall correctly, he probably lost his seat after voting with Daschle et al to require post 9/11 airport security types be allowed to form some sort of union which would have made them hard by impossible to fire but also reliable Democratic voters.
What are you getting huffy with me for? I just provided the video that Katey referred to.
You did? Check that video again… it can’t be the one you meant to post. Katey made reference to an attack ad that compared Cleland to Osama Bin Laden, which that ad certainly doesn’t do.
This is amazing, this pretty much proves an article I read somewhere on a study on how partisans (from both sides) will completely ignore information that makes their side look bad, in that they consume the info but do not mentally process its implications; while hyper-focusing, at the very same, time on information that makes their political opponents look bad.
When I see this ad I see that a couple months after the attacks of 9/11 the Republicans are putting up pictures of Osama and Saddam in the same context as a Democratic senator . . . Publius and Judge, dont see the harm in this somehow . . . And I mean, MoveOn wasn’t SAYING General Peatrus was betraying us, they were only ASKING if he was General Betray US? Right, come on guys no foul, right?
Oh and lets not even get into the fact that the term “General Betray US” TM, was originally coined by Rush LImbaugh in reference to Chuck Hagel. Get it, a Vietnam War veteran . . . though somehow that doesn’t bother you. Where are your posts of outrage!?
Anyway, mot to mention that the provision to nix unions was 100% completly political added at the very last minute in a move to paint Ds a conner.
Remember this was original Joe Lieberman’s bill . . . and we were talking about REMOVING, not adding the collective bargaining rights of over 170,000 federal employees . . .now of course these are the people we want to protect us, but some how Judge these are also the people you want to disparage as a Democratic special interest.
Regardless it was all nonsense anyway, because agencies can override contracts during emergencies and can easily fire employees who jeopardize national security.
And the president has always had broad power to remove the collective bargaining rights of any group of federal employees who perform duties related to national security.
I heartily agree w/ your first paragraph above, Jon. It’s just that liberals are soooo much worse about it than we fair-minded conservatives. ;)
If you remember where you found it I’d like to read that article.
Its good to know you have a sense of humor . . . I think what I read was a review of this book:
http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=1586484257
Essentially Drew Westen is the Democratic party’s answer to Frank Luntz . . . unfortunately I think he is working for Hillary.
But that is not the review that I read . . . I cant remember where it was . . . maybe it was on the radio.