Let's get one thing straight. The moveon.org ad didn't kill more than 2,700 US troops in Iraq. It didn't injure the more than 27,000 others who left that country disabled. It didn't attract an active al qeda insurgency. It didn't mire the country in a civil war. It didn't cause acid rain, global warming and the decline of western civilization as we know it.
It doesn't even cause whiter teeth or fresh breath.
You'd think it did all those things if you listened to the rhetoric spewing from war supporters this week.
The left leaning activist organization and website with the same name, moveon.org this week took out a full-page ad in the New York Times where it mocked Gen. David Petraeus as Gen. Betray Us. MoveOn called it factual and sticky. But the political right came unglued.
Rudy Guliani, denounced it, while taking out his own ad. Republican candidates tripped over each other to portray the ad as a disrespectful attack on a good man...and the military. The fever pitch built this week to the point that the president felt the need to weigh in and a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage. Let me repeat that: a Democratic controlled Senate passed a resolution 72-25 expressing its outrage.
All this commotion for an ad? An ad?
This, my friends, is the politics of distraction. Having trouble defending the substance of the good general's testimony? Put the messenger in the cross hairs. His supporters seem to suggest that he is so thin skinned that any strident disagreement is over the line. A decorated general who is fighting in a war zone where sniping and road side bombs are the order of the day can't take a shot from an advertisement?
Gen. Petraeus is a public figure, not just reporting out on the state of affairs but making a recommendation on the path forward. He's lending his voice and expertise to a national debate on the future of our country. To the extent that he uses any facts or figures to back them up, they should be open to scrutiny. And if they don't hold up under scrutiny, then he ought to be prepared to have them called into question. And if it appears he is knowingly misleading the country, we ought to be able to point that out too. Even if it is in an ad.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Sen. Larry Craig is not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that?
Sen. Craig is not gay. The way the Seinfeld bit goes, you’re supposed to immediately follow with “not that there’s anything wrong with that."
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Since the good senator spent most of his career preaching that there was something wrong with that, he was willing to confess to anything but being gay. In fact, he was so focused on not being gay that he forgot that there was something wrong with pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a man in a bathroom.
Here's the thing. I can't think of any straight man who would plead guilty to soliciting sex from another man in a bathroom...especially if the only evidence was that he stomped three times and waved under the stall.
His defense is that he was so scared of bad publicity that he was willing to cop to anything to make it go away. He pleads it out, pays his fine, goes on his way.
He's now a convicted criminal, a hypocrite, and a pervert. But he's not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Both Democrats and Republicans want Clinton. Shouldn't one of them be concerned?
GOP activists root for Clinton win - Jonathan Martin - Politico.com
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Why are Democrats flocking in record numbers to the one candidate Republicans are sure they can beat? This is the thing that puzzles me.
In most national polls, Sen. Hillary Clinton enjoys a comfortable lead over her closest rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. The pundit elite seem eager to coronate her as the Democrat nominee, while gushing about her "flawless" campaign.
On the other side, Republicans are making no secret of the fact that their best chance at winning would be by unifying their base against another Clinton presidency. Yet, in all the pontificating, I've not heard much of a Democratic response to how they think she would compete against the Republican machine. How can that not be a serious part of any calculation?
In the 2004 election, it was all about winning. About being electable. That's why Sen. John Kerry could easily outpace Gov. Howard Dean. Kerry had more electable qualities. It seems that if the Democrats applied the same litmus test today, they would have a more competitive race.
Perhaps another lost lesson from the 2004 election is that when Republicans don't want to run on their record, they will run on yours, or a caricature of yours. With Clinton as the nominee, they won't have to invent a caricature, it already exists. The Clinton that failed so spectacularly with the Healthcare issue, isn't so far from memory that she can't be revived. And when she is revived, it won't matter who the Republicans select as their nominee. If Clinton represents the Democrats, the election will all be about her.
So now you have Republicans openly giddy about a Clinton candidacy, and Democrats setting the table for the feast. Am I the only one who sees this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)