Matt Stoller: Liberals That Bash Moveon

[babylonsister]

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1389

Liberals That Bash Moveon
by: Matt Stoller
Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 14:38:00 PM EDT

Taylor Marsh and Jane Hamsher write compelling posts about Elizabeth Edwards, who blasted Moveon earlier this week. She joins Democratic 'strategist' Peter Fenn who blasted Moveon on MSNBC yesterday, and Laura Schwartz, a fellow 'Democratic strategist', who did so on Fox News, and John Kerry, who argued that Petraeus ought not be criticized. And then there's 'liberal' commentator Mark Shields who went after Moveon with a vicious and dishonest smear.

MARK SHIELDS: The activist antiwar wing of the Democratic -- I won't even call it the Democratic Party, because they're not Democrats, but particularized by MoveOn.org this week, with it's just offensive and tasteless full-page ad in the New York Times, playing a pun on General Petraeus' name, "General Betray Us."

I think, in a strange way, it did two things. One, it gave the Republicans something to talk about all week, rather than trying to defend the president's policy, which many of them are uncomfortable doing. But it also may very well liberate the Democrats, that they don't -- from that antiwar base. And they say, "Look, I think there's a chance of a compromise."

There are many ways to disagree with this ad without undermining your allies. Lowell Feld, for instance, called it a 'big mistake' without raising hackles. Part of building an effective movement is knowing when an attack is an attack on surrogates, and when it's an attack on ideas. Moveon and its 3 million members were standing up for integrity in military leadership, public debate, and Congressional oversight.

There's a reflexive instinct to shy away from heated arguments among Democrats, so I'm sympathetic to those who threw Moveon under the bus, as I have been thrown under the bus by good people at certain points. It happens. It's politics. Still, it's important to recognize this as an error, and not do it again.

[depakid]

1. Mark Shields is essentially Alan Colmes

Both enjoy cushy jobs where they play the doting foil.

Both love to convey the so called "conventional wisdom" of the Beltway crowd- and neither of them are bright enough to figure out that they're simply tools for the far right. Or perhaps they know, but just don't care.

[JamesA1102]

2. Please, we are not Republicans

We should not be required to all walk in ideological lockstep.

[tularetom]

3. It has nothing to do with repubs vs. Democrats

It's beltway insiders vs. real americans. People like Mark Shields and every other TV pundit, talking head and political guru, are all scared shitless that somebody other than them is becoming the primary purveyor of current events to the country at large. The net is the latest manifestation of how their sphere of influence has shrunk.

What Moveon did was not a mistake. It was done intentionally and it has got the beltway establishment crapping their pants. As far as I'm concerned that's a good thing and if it bothers Mr shields so much he can eat shit and die. Besides that Betrayus ad in my opinion was mild. When I heard all the uproar I was prepared for something really nasty. Bet KKKarl rove comes up with worse stuff than that every day before breakfast.

[Cha]

81. Great Point..I never thought

of that but it makes good sense. They doth protest too friggin much.

[sandnsea]

4. John Kerry praised the activists, endlessly

Said two words were "over the top" - but somehow or other that is a horrific crime as opposed to calling it a "big mistake".

:crazy:

The real problem are those who are choosing to continue focusing on this instead of the GODDAMN WAR.

fucking idiots in this country, way too goddamn many of them.

[nosmokes]

7. Where was he yesterday when the big protest was happening? n/t

[sandnsea]

9. Yeah, it's never enough

I know I know, he didn't cure cancer this week either.

[Tesha]

26. Not one Democratic politician was willng to stand with us.

That message carries a lot of meaning to me.

Tesha

[cali]

39. You realize that includes people like Dennis

Bernie, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, and many other dems who have fought valiantly against this war for years, right? You might want to ponder WHY they weren't there.

[Tesha]

50. Yes, I realize that.

> You realize that includes people like Dennis, Bernie,
> Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, and many other dems who have
> fought valiantly against this war for years, right?
> You might want to ponder WHY they weren't there.

Yes, I realize that.

My opinion of them is reduced by that fact, none-the-less.

A hundred thousand (+/-) activists were there; they should
have been there too.

Tesha

[nosmokes]

79. Yes they should have!

And my opinion and my respect for them is diminished by their absence yesterday.It's a slap in the face to the people that have supported them and have been fighting against this war from the beginning, not to mention people that were roughed up by the pigs and ended up in custody in the hospital overnight like a friend of mine.Tesha is absolutely right.They should hav been there too. the Demonstration should have been front page news all across the country and the lead off story on all the cable shows instaed of all OJ all day.

[karynnj]

22. Where was Kerry - Kerry was on MTP giving the clearest

arguments I have heard for the Democrats - and completely destroying John McCain. How many Senators and Congressmen were there?

[Carolina]

74. exactly, Kerry

bugs the crap out of me with his wimp factor.

1)Didn't stand up to swift-boating
2)When asked about the movie Fahrenheit 911 during the 2004 campaign (when, of course repukes made Michael Moore an issue) said -- with some derision directed at Moore -- that he had not seen the movie and did not intend to see it
3)In essence, bashes the MoveOn ad because no matter how he couched his words (and he's so good at that), he surely should know by now how the RW will twist and distort so that his own words can be used against him and against MoveOn
3)Voted for IWR when he knew damn well what the *shies were about after his investigative role in Iran-Contra

Repukes NEVER disavow the words of Rush, O'Liely, Hannity, Beck, Savage, etc.
But Kerry, Elizabeth Edwards, Biden should either shut up or throw the content of MoveOn's ad back at the questioner.

Afterall, haven't we learned by now that Presidents, Generals and other such festooned "Honorables" are not above LYING, BETRAYING and otherwise SELLING OUT!

[OHdem10]

5. There is a reflexive strain anong Democrats to assume

the GOP is always right and Democrats must be wrong.

They act like abused spouses.

In every response it appears think MoveOn is a group
of 10 lefties. They slapped 3.2 million people in
the face.

Penn and Schwarz ( I am sorry) but in their commentary
they come across as to the right of the DLC --and believe
me that is RIGHT.

Democrats only make themselves look weak and bullied.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Yup. Everytime republicans tut-tut, Democrats wring their hands and start ripping on Democrats...

... What a bunch of fucking suckers that comprise our party.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. I'm good with the ad. The swift boats got a bunch of TV ads during 2004.

Unrestricted political money, interests and speech.

MKJ

on edit, it just so happens free speech is the only Constitutionally protected of the three.

[wellst0nev0ter]

71. You Forgot Three Words

Purple

Heart

Band-aids


Thank God for Moveon.org since Dems can't seem to stand up to these blatant hypocrites.

[GR]

10. Lakoff Said It Was On Target...I Agree

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/whose-betrayal_b_64579.html

"MoveOn's "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad has raised vital questions that need a thorough and open discussion. The ad worked brilliantly to reveal, via its framing, an essential but previously hidden truth: the Bush Administration and its active supporters have betrayed the trust of the troops and the American people.

MoveOn hit a nerve. In the face of truth, the right-wing has been forced to change the subject -- away from the administration's betrayal of trust and the escalating tragedy of the occupation to of all things, an ad! To take the focus off maiming and death and the breaking of our military, they talk about etiquette. The truth has reduced them to whining: MoveOn was impolite. Rather than face the truth, they use character assassination against an organization whose three million members stand for the highest patriotic principles of this country, the first of which is a commitment to truth."

[Peregrine Took]

13. This is the first mis-step of Elizabeth Edwards and it was a bad one.

Why did they feel it was necessary to get involved?

[cali]

11. How horribly dishonest of Stoller. Just blech.

She most certainly did NOT bash MoveOn. Her criticiam was very mild. And how about Frank Rich, one of the most incisive columnists out there? He didn't think MoveOn's ad was so brilliant either.

I love MoveOn. I didn't think the name calling or insinuated name calling, or whatever you want to call it, was such a great move. That's hardly the same as bashing.

[babylonsister]

15. I really respect Frank Rich, but he isn't a god either. This article

lays it out to my satisfaction, and whodathunkit, criticizes Rich, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x308150

[cali]

16. He's certainly not a god, but he is one of the most

astute and prescient commentators in the country. But what really bothers me is Stoller's gross exaggeration about E.Edward's pertinant comments. It's just dishonest.

[babylonsister]

17. Edwards said:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070914/NEWS/70914014/1001/LIFE

MoveOn.org should not have labeled Gen. David Petraeus “General Betray Us” in a controversial newspaper ad, Elizabeth Edwards said in Des Moines Friday.

“Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us,’” said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.


She's basically criticizing MoveOn and excusing him because he wears a uniform so deserves respect.
I can see where the criticism of Edwards is coming from. His military career shouldn't have anything to do with his current betrayal.

[cali]

19. I don't see that as bashing.

The article continues:

Elizabeth Edwards said the group could have made its point by simply using Petraeus’ own previous words about purported good news in Iraq without insulting him personally.

She said she generally supports grass-roots organizations like MoveOn.org for giving average people a voice. “But I’m probably not going to agree with everything that any one group says.”

Her views on the ad were similar to those expressed Thursday by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. The Iowa Democrat told a Des Moines Register reporter that the MoveOn.org ad “was a bad choice of words. I would have said, ‘Petraeus, mistaken again,’” Harkin said. “But ‘Betray Us?’ That’s going too far.”

She is not saying he shouldn't be criticized.

How about Harkin's comments? Do you see those as bashing?

Personally, I think name calling is not a preferred way to make a point. You can criticize just as strongly and MORE effectively without it, and you don't give the fucking rw, a hammer to hit on you with. Yes, they'll always try and smash criticsm, but you don't have to make it so easy for them. In any case, we don't know yet whether this ad was helpful or damaging. And we may never know. I don't think it's of vital importance, and it hardly outweighs the facts on the ground in Iraq, or all the lies being told by Petraeus and others.

[Skittles]

12. this just kills me

there's an never-ending daily slaughter in a piece of shit war, but it takes a f***ing AD to get panties in a wad. :puke:

[Solly Mack]

21. Thank you!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. It is politically incorrect to criticize the tinware and ribbon bedecked generals.

The poor dears are ever so sensitive and easily hurt.

The adulation of the military by "liberals" like Mark Shields and Elizabeth Edwards and the quivering "strategists" is nauseating.

[Lilith Velkor]

67. Ass-kissing little chickenshits

Admiral Fallon *hates* people like that.

[robcon]

18. Moveon should be thrown under the bus.

The reason why the Edwards camp criticized Moveon is that they are not dependent on the financial backing of Soros, who is the largest backer of Moveon, so they are free to criticize the offensive ad.

Clinton, Obama, etc., need to keep on George Soros's good side, so they don't dare criticize the stupidity of Moveon, for fear of losing their financial sugar daddy.

[ShortnFiery]

23. If you choose to once again "trash the liberal base" then democrats should NOT be surprised when

"the liberal base" stays home during the G.E.

Hello?!? Remember John Kerry's swift-boat attacks? Now ask yourself how many republican representatives and media strategists said ANYTHING NEGATIVE about the ad at all? As I recall there was "a smattering" of factual counter-articles by the WP and some other democratic commentators.

I'm ashamed of Elizabeth Edwards and the Democratic Commentators who criticize MoveOn.Org. The young men I see "on day pass" to QMCB with devastating "traumatic brain injury" (led around like the elderly) can't speak for themselves. :cry:

As a Army veteran and wife of a retired Marine, I am PROUD that MoveOn.Org wants to save more of our beloved troops from being killed and maimed FOR nothing more than War Profiteering and some deluded PNAC notion that Empire makes us safer.

I've not ever "broke ranks" with regard for voting for a Democratic Presidential Candidate since 1980. However, I kid you not - I'm so damn disgusted now with regard to "the swift-boating of MoveOn.org" that I am seriously considering voting GREEN come the G.E.

What these illustrious democratic strategists do NOT realize is that MoveOn.org does enjoy MILITARY VETERANS within their ranks. HAVE THEY NO SHAME?!? Is cheer leading for war profiteering something they can tell their grandchildren they did before the onset of WWIII? That is, if the human race is still existent 20 years from now? With this Unitary Executive calling the shots, I fear massive death and destruction. :grr: :nuke: :grr:

[karynnj]

29. Move on.org is not being swift boated

That is a ridiculous accusation. No one is accusing them of doing anything they didn't do. The ad is what the ad is.

Who made Move on.org God. All anyone did is say that the "General Betray us" wording was not appropriate in their opinions. Why do you think Move on had it in huge type - they were seeking controversy. It was in your face. I know they are against the war, but so are people like Edwards and Kerry. Each are working the way they think works best.

Senator Kerry did not use that type of inflammatory language as a young anti-war leader. Nixon feared him because he saw that Kerry could persuade people still for the war with his articulate reasons and that he could reach them because of his good manners - they were scared off by most anti-war leaders in the 1970s. Whether that was or is the most successful way to win people, it is who he is. He is working and fighting as hard as anyone in Move on.org to change the policy. They commented on his actions - often negatively, he certainly has the right to comment on theirs.

[ShortnFiery]

33. I'll repeat: In politics, you err on the side of "no comment" rather than disrespect your base.

I have no problem with some candidates PERSONALLY believing that the ad was "over the top."

HOWEVER, if you wish to draw in liberals, to include military veterans who support MoveOn.Org (yes there are both democrats and liberals ALSO in the AD military), you do NOT "say or do" anything that can be misconstrued by the opponent as DISSENT.

That's POLITICS 101.

Nobody LOVES the US Military (specifically, the ARMY) more than myself. Twenty five years ago I was married in my Army Dress Blues. My father was battlefield commissioned in Italy during WWII. My older brother (by 13 years) served in the 101st Airborne, 1967-8, Vietnam. I served four years active duty during Saint Reagan's 1980s.

My point: I, personally would not have "asked the question" in the way MoveOn.org choose to run. But it was A QUESTION, not an overt demonstration of disrespect. However, I'm intelligent and experienced enough to know that General Officers are not "The Military" but soldiers/sailors/airmen like the rest of us. Given General Petraeus's background, his integrity is NOT impeachable.

Read the MoveOn.org ad and then ask yourself again if the ad was truly over the top?

If the forgoing is not enough to convince you, please consider reading about the death of Col. Ted Westhusing?

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2440

Finally, please consider taking ONE MORE moment of your time to read Col. Westhusing's suicide note left for his direct commanders, Generals Petraeus and Fil:

Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. —You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more. Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs . You are not what you think you are and I know it.

COL Ted Westhusing

Life needs trust. Trust is no more for me here in Iraq.

snap

Asked by investigators if she (the widow of Col. Westhusing) had anything else to add, she replied, “The one thing I really wish is you guys to go to everyone listed in that letter and speak with them. I think Ted gave his life to let everyone know what was going on. They need to get to the bottom of it, and hope all these bad things get cleaned up.”

It appears that Michelle didn’t get her wish.

--------------

The way I can, as an American Citizen and Military Veteran, SUPPORT our beloved troops is to help reveal the dank and putrid underbelly of war profiteering that is fueling this illegal and immoral Occupation for Empire and Corporate Profits.

[karynnj]

40. I still say you are over reacting

The criticism was mild and directed against the words used, while the organization was lavishly praised. I don't think it was lost on many observers that Kerry was holding our side to a much higher standard than the Republicans did. Saying what he did as early as he did made it harder for the RW to use this to make their decade old charge that the Democrats don't support the military. I think you have already thought more of this statement than Kerry did.

He in fact spoke on April 22, 2006 about the right and responsibility to dissent. He was speaking of dissenting against the government. I would assume that he would assert the right to dissent against an activist group that is ONE part of the base of his party.

[robcon]

32. Why do you worry whether the liberal base is trashed?

Are you saying you can't take the heat? And you'll take your marbles and go home and refuse to play? Sounds pretty juvenile. (As if the DLC should stop voting because some here on DU criticize them .)

I think the party base should be able to 'take the heat' if they support the ad that backfired, without making pathetic threats of "staying home" on election day.

Vote for whomever you want. OR DON'T VOTE. Don't be so thin-skinned that you let my criticism (or anyone's criticism) of your tactics (or the tactics that you support) affect your voting behavior.

[ShortnFiery]

44. OMG! The LIBERALS have been the DLC's favorite whipping post for years!

It's not that I, personally can't take the heat, but that the RW can spew dissent between democratic factions. It's called compromise for teamwork. Since 1992, I've compromised to vote for candidates who were to the right of me politically all in the name of "party loyalty." However, after all these years it's getting harder and harder to support a party who DESPISES you. I'm sick of it! You are allowing the RW to give you permission to TRASH the base. Therefore, don't be surprised if your DLC candidate does not garner enthusiastic support from the grass roots come General Election Day.

Is the Democratic Party on the national level heading on the path toward a "Slow Train Wreck?" As smarmy MSM commentator Chris Mathews would quip, "Damn straight!"

[Carolina]

75. Add to that Dem Senators like

Kerry and Biden.

I hear ya SnF. I have supported Dems since 1968 and I have never been so disheartened and disenchanted as I am now with the party, the strategists, the commentators, and even some supporters of same ...

A war of lies that has caused so much death, destruction and devastation. A war that affects everything! Yet Wimpocrats and other wimpozoids bemoan an ad as being over the top.

Heaven hell us all!

[ShortnFiery]

25. So you definition of "stupidity" is speaking TRUTH to POWER? nt

[robcon]

34. Nice try, ShortnFiery

I define stupid tactics as tactics that backfire: that achieve the opposite of the intent.

[ShortnFiery]

37. Then WE ALL lose. The Republicans WIN because they do not disrespect ANYone within their base.

Moderate republicans may think that some of their base's TACTICS are "far out" if not "wrong" OR "disrespectful" to the target, BUT republicans are disciplined enough to say "It's not me or my people." OR "No Comment." :shrug:

I suggest that, in no small way, their MESSAGE discipline (to NOT EVER criticize "the base") is WHY they win elections. Granted they also OWN the press. The foregoing is why we, as democrats, must STAND STRONG and not allow the RW noise machine to divide us.

[ProSense]

38. "republicans are disciplined"

So now you're praising Republicans to make your point?

Republican discipline is why we're in this mess.

[ShortnFiery]

49. Then, I respectfully suggest that some of you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You SAY that you want to win in 2008?

That WINNING is all-powerful?

The republicans are mean spirited and democrats can never, IMO, match their capacity for smarmy campaigning. However, their discipline to FUNCTION as "a team" is undisputed.

If we want to win, we MUST NOT parse our words - or else the RW noise machine is on target with their SLIME and REGURGITATION. :shrug:

Why is this one little element so difficult for many, I will never understand.

Do. Not. Disrespect. Your. Base. EVER!

[cali]

42. One number for you, shorty:

2006. and some more numbers (and words)

Dem Senate pick-ups, 2008- 3 to 7, and maybe more, depending on the economy and just how bad things are in Iraq. The pickups are:

VA
NH
CO

and possibly

ME
OR
NE
NM
AK

10 to 20 pickups in the House.

And the presidency.

Whine all you want about how many of the base won't vote, but you're wrong. And your narrow definition of the base is why.

[ShortnFiery]

46. I'm not whining, and I thought you told me that you would not respond to me anymore?

Guess you need to CHECK your own sense of discipline partner? :eyes:

[robcon]

60. I'm not saying we should disrespect the target.

I think we should disrespect tactics that backfire. When something the 'base' does achieves a victory of sorts for Republicans, they should be criticized, they should be admonished, and they shouldn't make empty, useless juvenile threats about not voting when someone dares to criticize them.

You keep acting as if I care whether you 'feel good' about fellow Democrats like me, who think the base made a mistake. I don't care whether you won't vote Democratic if I criticize you and others. Thin-skinned is an understatement about you.

I don't give a shit about your feelings. My point is that the tactics backfired, helped the Republicans, and provided a distraction for Democratic Senators whose task was to grill Petraeus. Petraeus got unneeded positive publicity as the victim of a character assasination. As one pundit wrote... it used Hannity's stupid tactics from the left.

[ShortnFiery]

61. The ONLY true reason that the tactics backfired - which still remains to be seen, in full,

is that GUTLESS commentators and so called democratic strategists REPEATED the RW noise machine's outrage to such an extent that FAR TOO MANY of our illustrious Democratic Leaders folded like cheap suits and decided to PARSE their comments.

I do not support HRC in any way, shape or form. However, she was SMART, in that, she refused to comment on the specific ad. It hurts to admit, but I honestly admire her for her DISCIPLINE and good judgment on that count. She may draw in more of the base because she wisely opted for "no comment." :shrug:

[robcon]

62. You are in denial, IMO.

Or, you have a tin ear. When a general is accused of betrayal, he is going to get sympathy, not opprobrium, in his moment on camera.

Sorry you don't understand, or refuse to understand, politics in 2007.

[ShortnFiery]

64. Have you served in the military? I fear that far too many civilians have STARS in their eyes

that blind them from the fact that Generals are also Human Beings, not GODS. :shrug:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carolina]

77. OMG

Hasn't ANYONE learned by now that GENERALS LIE
And if calling a spade a spade upsets some people then good.

Haven't we all seen that presidents, attorney generals, military generals, CIA chiefs ...
LIE, BETRAY and otherwise SELL OUT.

SPEAKING OUT, speaking that truth to the so-called honorables, to power, is what AMerica used to be about!

[VP505]

78. How is asking

Petraeus or betraeus and accusation, did most not see the ?in the title of the Move On Ad?

[karynnj]

20. Blatant bias and dishonesty in this statement

He said: "John Kerry, who argued that Petraeus ought not be criticized." Kerry has personally criticized Petraeus. What he was against on this was the use of word play that attacked Petraeus' patriotism rather than his judgment or accuracy. Kerry has consistently come down against calling people's patriotism into question. (In fact, on MTP, he said that Petraeus headed the failed Iraqi training program and that 2 years ago he had told Kerry of the (100,000 - I can't remember exact number) that were ready. In the hearing, Kerry framed Petraeus' testimony as parallel to Westmoreland in 1967 and spoke of how half the names on the wall reflect deaths that occurred after that - when the generals knew the policy could not work. Think about that. Couple it with Kerry's many many statements that the current policy is not working and his comments that it is immoral to send people to die for a policy that is wrong.

Of course, to someone of Stoller's great intellect that is not criticism, engaging in the type of name calling by playing with the guy's name is.

Kerry praised Moveon.org for the grassroots work they have done - but drew the line on "general betray us". I would have been surprised if Kerry had said it was fair came to say General "betray us". He did not call a press conference to say this - he was asked the question and answered. It is consistent with the Senator's values that we all know. It is also true that as one of the people working on formulating the Democrats' strategy, he speaks with Petraeus - the military is not part of the Republican party.

Matt Stoller clearly has a problem with Senator Kerry - but he needs to be honest.

[ShortnFiery]

24. That's what our Democratic Party leaders have never embraced - a tragic flaw/mistake.

Do NOT ever disrespect the base of your party. :grr:

When the economy was good, Democrats could tout the pro-corporate and capitalism - vice public works RULES. Now that the economy is "not so good" they do not get out of their "beltway blindness" long enough to realize that Good People / Liberal People are suffering out in REAL America.

They don't realize that Veteran's Groups such as: Veterans for Peace and Iraqi Veterans Against the War members, would rather low crawl over broken glass than DISRESPECT MoveOn.org who has the patriotism and courage to speak truth to power. :thumbsdown:

[karynnj]

27. Neither Elizabeth Edwards or Kerry disrespected the "base"

They both, from their own values" rejected the the name calling in the ad. Both took the time to put that criticism in context praising moveon.org for the valuable work they have done.

Consider this parallel. Did you ever call out the Democratic activists who criticized slogans, speeches and statements of the 2004 nominee because they would have preferred other wording? I saw people rewrite elegant Kerry statements to include copious four letter words and say that that was what he needed to say. I thought they were nuts, but I did not say they had no right to say that they did not approve of Kerry's language. Kerry did not say Move On did not have a right to write it he said when asked "it was over the top. Inappropriate, period." That was Kerry's opinion. He has as much right to an opinion as anyone at Move on.org

Your last sentence is likely wrong - at least one leader of votevets used language very close to Kerry's to say that he didn't like that part of the ad. Name calling is not speaking truth to power.

[ShortnFiery]

28. That's the BIG Lie. MoveOn.org NEVER called him that, it was a question.

Bravo! The RW noise machine along with democratic strategists beholden to the military industrial complex who OWNS the MSM has "once again" intimidated the shit out of our Democratic Leaders to such an extent they have to hem and haw and PARSE THEIR WORDS.

In politics, you do NOT parse words. MoveOn.org is a large liberal organization, that is, to a large extent, supportive of the Democratic Party.

The GLARINGLY OBVIOUS point is that MoveOn.org did NOT overtly disrespect Petraeus. READ THE AD!!!

I'm ashamed of all our Democratic Candidates and Strategists who essentially "laid down and rolled over on their backs" ... once again revealing their SOFT puppy tummys for the RW noise machine's pit bulls to feast upon.

:wtf: I honestly believe that The Democratic Party political class has thrown the entire Liberal Base under the bus. I couldn't be more saddened and disgusted. :cry: :grr: :thumbsdown:

[ProSense]

31. His opinion is that he didn't like the ad! None of this addresses the blatant lie in Stoller's piece

"John Kerry, who argued that Petraeus ought not be criticized."

Kerry never said that. In fact he said exactly the opposite: here and here.

It's really funny how people are using a piece with obvious lies and distortions in it to criticize people for expressing their opinion. It's not the first time Stoller pulled this (misrepresenting Kerry's position) either.

[ShortnFiery]

35. That's the reason POLITICIANS know that you do NOT parse words toward members of your base. nt

[ProSense]

36. Why because the base is prone to lying?

What nonsense! Stoller is dishonest!

[ShortnFiery]

41. Our Base = The MoveOn.org Ad was TRUTHFUL.

:wtf: is wrong with you people who can't see that we must play as a team?!?

I honestly give up. Perhaps when the DLC's Democratic Party on The National Level FULLY implodes, what's left of us can conduct an intervention? Until then, enjoy your "slow train wreck" toward political disaster.

May Peace Be With You.

[ProSense]

43. A lot of people in the base thought the ad was ill-timed and not helpful.

This has nothing to do with the DLC so why are you even bringing them into it?

[ShortnFiery]

48. The Base = political strategists, et. al. mostly within the beltway. nt

[karynnj]

76. Moveon is necessarily independent

They want it that way, our leaders need it that way and I think when you think about it most of us want it that way too. If they and the elected Democrats were a team, who would be the one with the most right to lead? One candidate over the last 3 years would be the duly elected standard bearer. He is the last percent that the majority of Democrats voted as a leader. But, even as a Kerry supporter, I don't think he should have been the only leader after losing - just one of them. I do not even know the name of the person heading Moveon.org - and am completely unmotivated a google for it - I know I won't recognize it. I know Soros is a huge funder - should money determine who the Democratic leader is. I prefer to think we have many leaders - including Kerry, the Clintons, Obama, Edwards, Kennedy, Gore, Leahy, Dean, and many other people. I never expect them to ever be 100% in agreement. In fact, to steal a joke often applied to Jews within the Jewish community, I think if their are 20 Democratic leaders in a room, you will have 21 opinions. That is healthy.

Also, ask yourself this question, had Kerry been elected, would you feel that Moveon should have just disappeared or become an outreach organization allied with the President? Or, would you think that, even as President, Kerry should have followed Moveon's guidance? In which case, the people who put huge sums into Moveon matter more than the elected President - That's just wrong.

You speak of the Republicans falling in line with their leaders - here you are asking our leaders to fall in line with the almost unknown people heading ONE of the grassroots organizations. I want our leaders to work together, but I want them all to follow their consciences. I also hope that even if we get a Democratic President, that there are still grassroots interest groups that scrutinize what the Democratic president does with the same intensity that they scrutinize Republicans. I would even have wanted this had Kerry become President - and I trust him far more than most candidates.

[karynnj]

55. Kerry did not parse words

He said that he did not like them. He was 100% clear. It is Stoller who is playing with language - making a huge dishonest jump from Kerry saying he did not like a specific ad to he does not believe you can criticize.

[cali]

47. If those are your sentiments you

should leave the party and join the Greens or some other party where you'd be happier.

[ShortnFiery]

51. Cali, you told me that you would not respond to me. What's up with that? nt

[cali]

57. Really, it's not that tough to figure out.

I changed my mind. I actually prefer not to have anyone on ignore.

[ShortnFiery]

59. You broke your promise to me.

I'm shattered. ;) Now stop cali, it's getting really inane - and reflects poorly ON BOTH OF US. :shrug:

[karynnj]

52. I did not say they did

The fact that it was in the form of a leading rhetorical question does not make it not name calling - there is name calling here.

We will have to disagree. I do not think they should have used the supposedly clever - but very obvious - word play. I also think it was used to create controversy.

Move on is a large liberal organization if you look at how many people are on their list or who have contributed at some time - but the vast majority of people counted that way may do absolutely nothing that has anything to do with moveon.org. I have contributed, but in identifying who I am, I doubt I would ever think to include that. I would say Democrat, would speak of local involvement and would say which politician I most support - after more personal stuff. I would bet that even of the people who have contributed or who get the emails - a significant % are put off by the wording. I am still on the list - I want to know what they are doing so I can participate sometimes.

As I said - Kerry didn't like that language. That is his right. He likely convinced more people with his Stephanopolis interview last week and the debate this week than the ad did. Though unfortunately most people are intreched so both may have been hard pressed to make a difference. Everyone is working on it their own way. It does seem hypocritical that people on the left that gave themselves permission to diss everything Kerry did in 2004, should be above any criticism themselves.

[ShortnFiery]

54. It doesn't seem that you're very fond of liberals within the party ...

I guess you think we all disrespected Kerry? Not true. Well, I'm going to wrap up this exchange with the thought that, if you feel as such, you won't miss us later. With respect, have a good day. :hi:

[karynnj]

72. Actually you did -

you accused Kerry of everything from siding with the RW spin to dissing the base, none of which he did. He happens to be a gentleman - and I for one - admire his ability not to return slime with slime.

By the way, I am a liberal and have been for at least 40 years. My husband, daughters and I went to the protest marches. I have contributed to Moveon and we get their email. I simply do not like the name calling words in the ad. Being a liberal does not mean endorsing name calling. I learned as a kid that it never persuaded anyone to agree with me and simply made everybody angrier. If Petraeus had a more anglosized name like Brown, Smith, Harrington, Morrison etc they would not have used the word "betray" that is connected to words and charges that really would need extensive proof before even mentioned as an accusation. Here, it came because you get there by changing a "P" to a fairly similar letter "b".

You do realize that some of the right wingnuts think they are clever doing the same thing - giving obnoxious mispronunciations of the names of Democrats. It is sickening to listen to.

[ShortnFiery]

82. No, I only accused Kerry, et. al. of parsing their words and thereby giving the RW permission to ...

pick and choose.

For the life of me, I honestly can't understand people who claim to be LIBERAL yet disrespect others as "the left" :wtf: does that mean? ... to me, that is contrary to what I believe constitutes "a liberal"

But that's just me - my personal opinion ON THIS ISSUE that, in no way, disrespected any democratic politician.

[cali]

45. Don't you get it?

Some people thing that the base is their own small Purity Brigade coterie. They don't seem to have a clue of the breadth or depth of the party.

[ShortnFiery]

53. What I don't understand is your PROMISE to put me "on ignore" has been broken.

I must have struck a nerve buddy? :shrug:

[cali]

56. Nope.

I just like refuting your "arguments". It's petty of me, I confess, but as someone remarked, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. More seriously, I think you say things that are NOT true, and that should be refuted.

[ShortnFiery]

We both know that you did promise me to not respond. That's O.K.

I accept your apology. <TEASE! = my best Cobert eyebrow raise>

No disrespect but it's glaringly clear that we have no more productive information to exchange with each other.

[cali]

63. Actually, I don't recall making you any sort of promise

I do recall saying I was going to put you on ignore, which, for a few hours, I did.

But I do agree that our exchanges are hardly elevating. That doesn't mean that I don't fully reserve the right to refute you when I so wish.

[ShortnFiery]

65. Well, I won't tell stories out of school. Suffice to say - the truth is out there.

I'm really disappointed but that's cool. I need to get back to "the real world" anyway. I'm slacking by posting here. Most of my work is done, for now. I've presented my side - that's all I can do.

Even though you broke your promise to me, I still like you and hope that on other issues we may be on the same side. :hi:

[cali]

69. I suspect that we have a lot more in common than that which

separates us. Have a really good day. And yes, I mean it.

[ShortnFiery]

70. You made me smile.

Yes, my older brother and I used to fight all the time in our youth, but with time, we have become close. It was our similar personalities that was what truly got in the way of our friendship.

You're a worthy opponent, I'll give you that cali. Best regards. :hi:

[Major Hogwash]

30. Great post! I couldn't believe so many wimpy Democrats criticized MoveOn.org for their ad.

Where would these so-called patriots be without freedom of speech?

Nowhere!

Because we wouldn't have heard what they had to say in the first place!

[karynnj]

58. Freedom of speech never meant you would not be criticized for what you said

It meant you could say it. I heard no on in the Democratic party argue for prior censorship or dispute Move on's right to say it. In Kerry's case he was asked specifically what his opinion on the ad was - he said he didn't like it.

They had their freedom of speech, he had his.

[Beelzebud]

68. Ironically enough, the same goes for General Protreus...

[karynnj]

73. exactly - and Kerry NEVER said that Petraeus should not be questioned

In fact in the very same interview where he called the ad over the top, he also said that the hearings would probe what was said and try to bring accountability. The contradiction is that Stoller deliberately mischaracterized what Kerry said - this was likely deliberate as it fits a Stoller pattern.

[Major Hogwash]

83. I never even mentioned Kerry in my comment.

But, Kerry should have been smart enough to keep his opinion of MoveOn.org's ad to himself.

Just like I kept my opinion of Kerry to myself when Kerry criticized their ad.

[Cha]

80. Recommended!~ I like what Jane

Hamsher of Firedolake wrote in her open letter to Elizabeth Edwards.

It's what more than a few DUers were talkin' about last week, too.

[pipoman]

84. I don't see what Edwards

in particular said as undermining anything. She is is pretty good company in her disapproval of the ad IMO. Wes Clark, who I haven't seen mentioned in this thread actually knows and has worked with the General said he would have tried to stop the ad if he had known it was going to come out because he feels it is not an accurate assessment of the General.

I further believe that right now in this campaign is the time for the party to get our message straight. Does this ban on criticism of positions extend between the candidates? If so why even bother with the debates and run up to the primaries?

Now is the time IMO for the party to determine the positions we will later be cohesive on going into the general elections. That means disagreeing with each other sometimes. We should be able to disagree now to make our final positions outlined in our '08 platform as encompassing and inclusive of as many voters as possible. The time between the primaries and the general election is what counts and is the time for being cohesive. The Repubs are no different, they have strong disagreement of ideals among their candidates too.