MoveOn.org is not the problem

I can appreciate that MoveOn.org’s NYT ad yesterday included, to borrow John Kerry’s phrase, some “over the top” language. The ad was meant to be provocative; it was intended to generate inflammatory responses.

Whether the group’s strategy was wise is certainly open to debate, but Republicans are making a mistake by overplaying their outrage.

House Republicans are introducing a resolution to condemn an ad that MoveOn.org ran in The New York Times, referring to General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us” and accusing him of playing politics with his statistics regarding the surge. The ad was frequently referred to by Republican members at yesterday’s committee hearing with the general.

“The despicable attack MoveOn.org launched against General Petraeus today should be condemned by all Members of Congress, including the Democratic leadership,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). “I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join in support of this resolution so the House speaks with one voice rejecting the character assassination tactics employed by this extremist group.”

The resolution comes on the heels of House Republicans who preferred to talk about the ad instead of policy during the Petraeus/Crocker hearing yesterday, and Senate Republicans (most notably Norm Coleman) who are still going back to the well during this morning’s hearings.

My first thought was to note the crocodile-tears quality of all of this. Do we really need to rehash every recent instance of a notable right-wing lawmaker, activist, or media personality using over-the-top rhetoric? Every example of this crowd questioning a Democrat’s patriotism, and engaging in character assassination? Every occasion of a far-right talk-show host using disgusting language on the air, only to have Dick Cheney on shortly thereafter?

But that’s probably the wrong response, in part because it equates MoveOn with clowns like DeLay, Coulter, Falwell, and O’Reilly. My second thought was to note that it wasn’t liberal activists who came up with “General Betray Us” line, it was conservatives.

But that’s unsatisfying, in part because it’s kind of irrelevant. The real point here is that MoveOn.org, whether the ad was offensive or not, is not the problem here.

Too many Republicans, particularly in the House and at the grassroots, have apparently decided that Iraq policy is far too difficult, so it’s preferable to attack MoveOn. But that’s absurd — we’re in the midst of a national discussion on a war. Lives are at stake. National security is on the line.

The right’s priorities are spectacularly flawed. The plan is apparently a short-term political victory over a boogeyman — the RNC wasted no time in trying to raise money off the MoveOn ad — instead of engaging in a serious debate about the costliest policy catastrophe in a generation.

John Cole — who voted for Bush twice — shared a particularly poignant perspective.

The current GOP is a sniveling, brain-dead, spineless group of sewer trout, always focused on political advantage, never paying a lick of attention to what really matters. In the aftermath of Petraeus’s lame and essentially fact-free testimony (BUT HE HAD CHARTS!), they are not focusing on the hard decisions that need to be made, they are not soul-searching and trying to determine their role in this mess. That would make too much sense. Instead, they are doing what they always do — lashing out, trying to achieve one more temporary little political victory.

Condemning MoveOn won’t save one god damned life in Iraq. It will, however, make the dead-enders they represent giggle like a self-satisfied toddler on the pot.

It’s shameless. If the right took coming up with a coherent Iraq policy half as seriously as they take some intemperate newspaper ad, the nation would be far better off.

First of all, I agree that the attacks on MoveOn are silly and irrelevant, and that the Democrats shouldn’t even give them the consideration and respect of a vote on the “resolutions.”

That said, I fear that MoveOn is slipping into counterproductive self-caricature. It served a crucial purpose from about 1998 through 2004, providing the first nexus point for counter-organizing against a Republican clique that was borderline-putschist. But I think it’s axiomatic that a protest gesture doesn’t work when the style overwhelms the substance–which is clearly what’s happening here. Carpetbagger, TPM and a myriad of other sources have pushed back, I’d argue successfully, against the crediblity of Petraeus and the credulity of Democrats who get gooey as soon as they see his four stars; the dumb pun on his name overshadows the content of the critique and gives Republicans the excuse they were desperately seeking: to change the subject.

  • They want to condemn MoveOn.org for a political jab at their Dear Military Leader, but they blocked the no confidence vote for Alberto “Big Pussy” Gonzales. Yea, that makes sense.

    I think it clearly demonstrates a movement within the ranks of the Federal Government toward authoritarianism. I can’t wait to find out what’s next. Active suppression of political dissent?

  • “It will, however, make the dead-enders they represent giggle like a self-satisfied toddler on the pot.”

    Ain’t that really the truth of it, capturing the GOP base in one short sentence? From the Gore tripe about the internet, to the purple heart band-aids worn by the GOP ‘faithful’ at the 2004 convention, to this (and everything in-between and even previous taking into acount the Gingrich crew), it really does capture what the GOP and its supporters are all about–make tastless jokes and run away form all real issues all the while robbing the country’s coffers for the benefit of a select few.

  • “Active suppression of political dissent?”

    Didn’t we just see that last week when the protest organizers were chased off Lafayette Square by stampeding cops on horses?

  • That said, MoveOn’s brilliant move has definately stoked the GOP base… Believe it or not, the GOP is now rallying behind, of all people, Susan Collins of Maine to counteract MoveOn’s support of her challenger.

    Kind of reminds me of the situation Lieberman faced last year… that didn’t work out to well for MoveOn.

  • Kind of reminds me of the situation Lieberman faced last year… that didn’t work out to well for MoveOn.

    So you believe that Lieberman would’ve lost to the Republican challenger had MoveOn not supported Ned Lamont? I hesitate to make any more related comments, because that can’t be what you are saying…can it?

  • So you believe that Lieberman would’ve lost to the Republican challenger had MoveOn not supported Ned Lamont?

    No, I say that the left wing support for Lamont stoked the moderate and GOP base enough for the state’s voters to overwhelmingly support Lieberman.

  • It’s sad that the only political strategy our beloved Republican leaders have at their disposal is to throw as much flak into the air as possible – kind of reminds me of the bunker mentality of the 3rd Reich in the waning days of the last great war. -Kevo

  • I am sick and tired of feigned Republican outrage when they are just getting back what these SOBs have dished out since Rush Limpdick hit the airwaves. Gimme a break!

  • This reminds me of the Democrats outrage over a campaign ad that claimed they loved “Bureaucrats”.
    The graphics zooming in to the screen has the word “RATS” painted over teh screen for a moment and the Democrats howled that the GOP was using “subliminal messages”!!!

    Um, and so what if they are.
    It gave the ad credibility because they got so lost in the style they didn’t counter the CONTENT.
    They then called attention to it so that people would find out what the big fuss was about.
    Amazingly stupid.

    And here the GOP has done the same thing. Who would’ve even noticed Move-On’s little waste of cash stunt if the GOP hadn’t soiled their shorts? If we could guarantee this kind of whining histrionics with every ad, I’d send MoveOn a check.

    I really thought they were more savvy than that.

  • “No, I say that the left wing support for Lamont stoked the moderate and GOP base enough for the state’s voters to overwhelmingly support Lieberman.”

    So if you were a political advisor you would ask only moderate groups that support your candidate to voice that position publically to avoid backlash? Good thinking.

    Lets look at the reality of the LIEberman race. The GOP candidate was polling at under 10% facing a Democratic incumbant. By your logic if Lamont had not won the primary all the GOP voters would have accepted LIEberman as the winner and not voted at all. The end result is LIEerman wins. Conversely you argue that LIEberman won because CT Republicans voted for him as a less liberal alternative to Lamont. The end result is LEIberman wins.

    LIEberman lost the primary becuase he is a DINO. LIEberman won the general election because the GOP couldn’t find one person in CT that could put up a decent fight for the seat.

  • Well, of course the Reich has gone apesh*t on this. They never once contemplated that a non-Reich group would employ Reich weaponry, Reich strategy, and Reich tactics. Besides—the Reich is so bent on defending the George the Ripper’s “pet rock” now…that they’ve completely lost their focus on supporting “das Surge.” Meanwhile, the non-surge forces (let’s call them “the Truth Brigade”) continue to deliver an effective counter-surge message.

    Let’s play this scenario out a bit. The voice of the People continues to lean away from supporting the iraq issue. those numbers are even more “anti-Reich” in the 18-to-26 year old category—which is where military recruits come from—and that equates to less and less—and even LESS—“volunteers” (read: IED fodder) to go overseas and bleed for George the Ripper and his lymphatic league of proselytizing profiteers. Less troops means more danger for the contractors, which means less “volunteers” (read: sacrificial beheading recipients) for the contractors. As troop-availability continues to shrink (read: experience decimation), the only actual “force” still available will be the Reserve—which is where the sons and daughters of the Reich are hiding out. You’d be surprised at just how many non-traditional College Republicans and Gen-X GOPpers are in the Reserves. Bunches and bunches of middle-aged, conservative think-tankers, conservative media support staff, xenophobic wingnuts—all hiding out in the Reserves.

    George the Ripper won’t mobilize the Reserves because he’d have to send “Das Base” into the hot zone—and far too many of his loyal DC psychophants (read: GOP Senators and Representatives) would get called up as well.

    Perhaps we are witnessing “the last throes” of Mr. Bush’s Folly….

  • Just curious:

    Why would anyone care what kind of crap Republican’ts want to push in the Hosue? Aren’t Democratic politicians in control of the agenda?

    What would have happened if Democrats wanted to push a house resolution against the Swift Boat slandereres when the Republican’ts called the shots? Would we have even heard about it?

    Let them whine all they want. Then hightlight their whining, and laugh at their attempt to inject partisan Republiacn’t crap into the House’s agenda. “Now is not the time for Republican’t witch hunts” or something like that…

    Damn, it would be nice if (s)elected Democrats had at least a semblance of a spine…

  • “I can appreciate that MoveOn.org’s NYT ad yesterday included, to borrow John Kerry’s phrase, some “over the top” language. The ad was meant to be provocative; it was intended to generate inflammatory responses. [p] Whether the group’s strategy was wise is certainly open to debate, but Republicans are making a mistake by overplaying their outrage.” -CB

    Actually, Steve, you’re assuming objective rules of politics or reality exist. The GOP strategy, as asinine and counter-intuitive as it may seem (to most of us here), has *already* started paying dividends, as the *first* sentence of your post *proves*: the GOP got John Kerry — and you, among others — to see the language as “over the top.” Maybe you meant that as a tactical retreat, but to Republicans, that’s a retreat.

    Also, the idea that “Republicans are making a mistake by overplaying their outrage” requires *Democrats* to do something in retaliation to *argue* that point to the public, except, well, when Kerry — your 2004 presidential nominee and mine — says the language of the ad was “over the top,” *he* is conceding a rhetorical point to the Republicans — and does anyone doubt, emboldening them?

    Republicans overplay their outrage; it’s what they *DO*. Furthermore, it *works* for them. *We* think it’s a mistake because it’s (1) not what we would do, and (2) not something we can make work for us. But we ain’t them, and they ain’t us; for starts, we’re not blessed with opponents who are so delusional that they start many a political contest by giving up points and ground. And telling our political opponents they’re making a “mistake” just makes us sound like concern trolls; *we* *SHOULD* be rooting for Republicans to make “mistakes” because then, in *theory*, we would *benefit* from their fuck-ups.

    You know why we think it’s a mistake, or that it sounds impotent when Democrats demand apologies? Because Republicans tell Democrats to fuck off, and we do. You know why it works when Republicans demand apologies? Because the first inclination of a Democrat is to give one, and we do. (In short, for something to be a mistake, Steve, I’d think it should be demonstrably ineffective and/or counter-productive, and we haven’t *made* this that yet.)

    I suppose that’s the different between liberal concern-troll-style arguments and conservative ones (not like we’ve seen any of those lately); liberals want conservatives to avoid mistakes because liberals are powerless to undo them, while conservatives want liberals to avoid doing anything, so liberals get the idea they’re powerless to do anything. Hey, maybe that’s not such a big difference after all.

  • I don’t get it. Why didn’t a democrat stand up to the mic right after “boo-hoo” Boehner and say. “…In the aftermath of Petraeus’s lame and essentially fact-free testimony (BUT HE HAD CHARTS!), they are not focusing on the hard decisions that need to be made, they are not soul-searching and trying to determine their role in this mess. That would make too much sense…”

    On a issue of such importance, that the lives of our soldiers depend on our discussion as well the treasury of our country and Boehner is focusing on negative things said about the messenger rather than dealing with the issues of importance. Someone should have just carried a bottle of scotch up to Boehner and on handing it to him said, “here, get over it”.

    The dems claim this is Bush’s war…yet they will not do what is necessary to force him to end it so only 3-5 deaths per day to go till someone decides it’s time to start protecting the troops rather than sacrificing them to save face.

  • I dunno about you guys, but IMHO if “an authority figure” goes around pimping bogus data for a criminal enterprise, and he’s advocating getting more American troops killed so the criminals “don’t lose” a war that they lost the moment they pulled the trigger, then “Betrayus” is as good a characterization as any. He supposedly is looking out for his troops, but there he is flacking for the worst thing that’s ever happened to the troops.

    Almost 4,000 dead, tens of thousands wounded, trillions of dollars wasted, some of which could have benefitted the troops and their families. And he’s flacking for a guy who wants ANOTHER war, which will no doubt result in many more deaths and much less money to care for the wounded.

    He is betraying his troops. Big time. They need him to say “You know what? I’m not going to read you the Bush report. I’m going to tell you that this war is totally FUBAR and it has been from the get-go. Bush and his idiot cronies played you all for chumps, and you fell for it. I fell for it too. But no more. Today I am renouncing my position, and I am saying to you today that the only reason we’re trapped in Iraq is because we need to control the middle east’s oil supply. So my recommendation is to spend whatever it takes to get energy independent, because that would be a lot safer and cheaper than trying to manage a civil war that we’ll never win.

    (sorry, I was dreaming there)

    Everyone seems to agree that the data he’s pushing is basically cherrypicked crap. Calling him on it in no uncertain terms is a good strategy, especially when most Americans already agree that Bush is full of crap and since Petraeus is obviously a Bush flunkie who for all his medals and stars isn’t man enough to risk media exposure outside the safe confines of the Fox Noise Koolaid Stand.

    He’s a pussy. And a traitor. Just like a lot of his buddies.

  • ***btw*** for those who think Generals don’t lie, there are some really good pictures over at the democratic underground.com of General Colin Powell holding up a tiny vial of white powder at the UN speech. A graphic reminder that Generals do indeed lie. Also some illustrations of mobile weapons labs that were passed around, as colorful as Petraeus’ charts. Check it out. A picture worth a thousand words and all that. These are some good pictures.

  • OK, so when Ted “the motor city moron” Nugent calls a senator a bitch, and another to suck his dick, he’s defended by the right. When Coulter defames the families of 9-11, she’s defended by the right. When Rush, Glenn Beck, and the rest of these right wing traitors spew out their un-American tirades, the right defends them.

    But when a progressive orginization calls out a general for EXACTLY WHAT HE IS, another political stooge for the White House, they get this angry?

    Man, the hypocracy is making me ill.

    I’ve had enough. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, all the rest of you: I challenge you to a good old fashioned fist fight. I can’t wait to kick your punk asses. That goes for you too, Coulter, I have no problem whipping a transvestite’s ass, even if you changed into a woman from a man and not vice/versa.

  • I just read about General Petraeus on Wikipedia. Looks as though his entire career, until 2003, was spent in college or as an aide to some big-shooter. It’s not uncommon to see a fast rise in any organization fueled by patrons, which he obviously had. I mention this not to belittle the man, but to point out that it appears he was never a front-line soldier. Ricks in “Fiasco” gives him high marks in his approach to the people of Iraq, but as a House member said yesterday, his current plan is three years too late. He suffers because he has a reputation as a “political” general and because Bush just keeps firing generals until he finds one that will agree with his “vision”.
    Judd Greg was on CSPAN expressing his outrage at MoveOn. Wonder where he was when his beloved president and Rove were tearing McCain apart in SC? I don’t remember him saying anything then. Was he listening and did he introduce a resolution condemming the swift-boating of Kerry? I believe the operative word here is hypocrite.

  • I will never forget the sight of Republican delegates at their 2004 convention wearing band-aids with inked in purple hearts on their noses and other body parts. I was offended at their attack on Viet Nam era veterans and to this day, I do not understand why the media looked the other way. For the right-wing party, I guess it’s ok to attack foot soldiers, but not ok to attack a General.

  • John Cole was until very recently a kneejerk, KoolAid drinking Bush defender, screamiing “treason!” at everyone who dared to suggest the Bush War was a lie. While it’s nice to see he has since bought a clue, he still has a long ways to go to make up for the blame he personally bears.


  • citizen_pain: When Rush, Glenn Beck, and the rest of these right wing traitors spew out their un-American tirades, the right defends them.

    But when a progressive orginization calls out a general for EXACTLY WHAT HE IS, another political stooge for the White House, they get this angry?

    Have you ever participated in a “scoring contest” (that’s what we used to call it)? That’s when 2 or more people try to one-up each other with insults (e.g.: your Momma’s so ugly…).

    It’s all good fun until someone makes the mistake of saying something with a kernel of truth to it. The truth is OFF LIMITS!

  • If MoveOn.org isn’t pissing off the Republican shitheads on a regular basis, then they’re doing something wrong.

    It’s funny how freedom of speech only seems to apply to rightwing turds. Whenever someone says something they can’t tolerate, such as the truth in this case, then it’s time for Congressional resolutions condemning speech. Typical Republicans. Not even exceptional ones, just typical. Like our little buddy, the site troll.

  • But I think it’s axiomatic that a protest gesture doesn’t work when the style overwhelms the substance–

    See, that’s the kind of namby, pamby thinking that keeps the Dems spinning their wheels.

    At this point there is NO protest gesture that can be too over-the-top. From Sheehan getting arrested AGAIN to Move-On’s ad, it’s all useful and important.

    The proof of that is all the GOP howling in one accord.

    If only the Dems would actually listen to their constituency. I know that they have to be getting phone calls, letters and emails out the wazoo. Everyone is pissed at their schizoprenic nature: they posture and talk tough in the media only to bend over and take it up the ass on the Senate floor.

    When will the Dems get a spine? If we’re waiting on the GOP to be embarassed over sex scandals that they create when they want to punish one of their own, we’re going to be waiting a long time to fix this country.

    Email me when the revolution starts, will ya?

  • The ad was over-the-top, but the hypocrisy on the right on this matter is breathtaking. Rush Limbaugh strongly implies that Hillary Clinton had Vincent Foster murdered, compares the face of a 13-year old girl (Chelsea Clinton) to that of a dog, says that Democrats in Congress don’t care about the troops, and yet he is a secular god among conservatives and Republicans. Ann Coulter says that electing John Kerry (this was in 2004) would help the body bag and emergency services industry and is literally embraced by a Republican presidential candidate (Mitt Romney). Grover Norquist insults World War 2 veterans and goes on to become an adviser for President Bush. More examples could literally fill a book. You’d think Republicans and conservatives were operating on a double standard or something.

  • Well of course the right wing is going to play the MoveOn ad for all it’s worth. It’s what they do. The ad provides Republicans with a welcome opportunity to divert some attention from the substance of the case against their own failed policy. What a surprise that they would jump at it. What did MoveOn think the reaction was going to be? Duh.

  • This liberal ex-marine thinks it’s the best $20 bucks I’ve spent in a long time. Be proud of your donation MoveOn members! Let it empower you and help build the MOveOn ranks. I say thanks and I think many others do. That ad helped drown out the Republican noise machine and now they are angry. They seem to always cry like babies when the flak comes their way but they sure like to “swift boat” the opposition. Bloody hypocrites.

  • Comments are closed.