The MoveOn Dust-Up, the GOP's Self-Righteous Indignation, and Winning the White House

"How many times do we charge up the hill and run straight into enemy fire before we figure this shit out?"

I remember an angry Republican asking that question to no one in particular in a crowded GOP conference. The government was shut down, the public was testy and Bill Clinton was once again pounding a GOP Congress more interested in ideological purity than practical results.

This week's Moveon.org dust-up reminded me of that time when we Republicans led with our hearts and got pounded in our faces. We loved bathing in self-righteous indignation. Our base loved it too. But the practical results were always the same: we scared little children, household pets and crossover voters. It was a really great way to alienate the voters we needed the most.

Whoever dreamed up the ad questioning the loyalty of Iraq's top soldier would have fit in great with those of us who drove the political agenda in 1995 -- and guaranteed Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996. While I'm sure Move On's ad locked down the base in Manhattan and Madison, Democrats need to be more concerned with wooing voters in Tampa and Toledo.

I know this post will generate nasty emails. Every time I dare to tell Democrats how they can avoid the mistakes we Republicans made in the past, I am told to mind my own business. To those who are so offended, my apologies. Go ahead and spend the next year kicking around Generals and God. While you're at it, attack the Boy Scouts and burn a few flags for the hell of it.

You're right. Great election strategy. What was I thinking?

But for those who who actually want to win the White House in 2008, call your friends in liberal organizations and tell them to take a deep breath before they decide again to attack soldiers in a war zone.

Come on. This really shouldn't be that hard. The White House is the Democrats' to lose.

The president and his war are overwhelmingly unpopular.

The social issues that used to pull conservatives to the polls (guns, gays and God) are now so overshadowed by Mr. Bush's war that a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay New York mayor is running away with the GOP primary.

Add in the fact that Republican senators are getting caught in bathroom stalls and whorehouses and one wonders what the Democrats could possibly do to give George Bush the upper hand with swing voters.

Oh yeah. They could attack a highly decorated general.

Ugh. It's deja vu all over again.

Comments

[Ginzaman]

01:13 AM on 09/25/2007

Impeach Bush and Cheney

[kevenseven]

09:42 PM on 09/24/2007

Um. The MoveOn ad in no way attacked "soldiers in a war zone".

It attacked a General who had allowed himself to be politicize­d.

A perfectly valid target for criticism.

[accountability]

06:16 PM on 09/24/2007

Hi Joe, you do make some points, but I disagree about the ad.
I think it is important for Dem's to fight fire with fire, for too long they have tried to be the party of reason and intellectu­al discourse.
Where has it gotten them? Some people cannot be talked to in a reasonable manner, sometimes a good sock in the jaw is the answer.

Ann Coulter has never generated an apology from the right, from the republican­s for her disgusting tactics. Nor Limbaugh or O'Reilly, or Hannity who pose as pundits and make outrageous claims, statements and attacks that at best are gross distortion­s and exaggerati­ons. (Frankly you are the only conservati­ve I can bear watching. And I do watch and because you are intelligen­t I barely scream at my TV when I watch, though I suspect that is because you have shifted your war stance.)

I may not have chosen the way MoveOn did, I may have wished for something different, but I support them for the courage it took to risk the ire and smearing of the neo-con machine. Actually I am glad they did as it exposed the complete hypocrisy of the party that gave us swiftboati­ng and many other dirty ticks.

[Hope42]

02:35 PM on 09/24/2007

How come nobody is mentioning the origin for the nickname "General Betray Us"??? They got it from the nickname that was given to General Petreaus by his OWN TROOPS!! That is what his troops call him in Iraq!
The wife of a soldier in Iraq called in to CSpan and said that's what the troops call him. She said they knew he would not tell the truth and that's exactly what happened.
So Moveon.org tells the truth and gets vilified? Doesn't make sense to me.

[LeftLeaner]

02:04 PM on 09/24/2007

I'm not outraged by what you say, just in total disagreeme­nt with it.
I think the Ad spoke to what the majority of the AMERICAN (red and blue) public was thinking.
The polls taken clearly showed that the majority of Americans didn't believe the General was unemcumber­ed by what he was supposed to convey at his hearing.
What really BURNS ME though the most is that Petraeus DID CHERRY PICK the informatio­n, which was reported on - but very minimimall­y (which I'm SURE you know)- what they would classify as actual fatalaties and injuries, i.e., if shot from the front (not added), etc.
The MEDIA is so HEAVILY CONTROLLED by the RIGHT-WING CORPORATE Interests (as you know) that what they keep feeding us over and over and over,i.e., "that horrible Ad" - is what we then think about.
He and GW (NOT OUR PRECIOUS SOLDIERS - [targets]) DID BETRAY us and especially them.

[TheDude1369]

08:05 AM on 09/24/2007

joe, forget it already. it never was news. just the pigs beating a drum. everybody else has forgotten it. screw the general. matter of fact screw all the generals. ask any private.

[ScooterLiddy]

10:33 PM on 09/23/2007

General Petraeus did in fact "betray us". One need only look at this Pentagon Report that convenient­ly came out after he testified:
http://www­.defenseli­nk.mil/pub­s/pdfs/Sig­ned-Versio­n-070912.p­df

In short, Gen Petraeus lied and obfuscated in order to "kiss ass" to use the words of his boss, Adm Fallon.

[jj]

10:27 PM on 09/23/2007

I long for the day a conservati­ve can take responsibi­lity for their actions without equivocati­on and qualificat­ions.

[bluebill]

09:34 PM on 09/23/2007

joe--
Here's my problem. When the republican­s scream about something, it's echoed thoughout the vast MSM. You spent days on it. I'm not so offended,n­either, are my friends--b­ut we aren't your audience--­we tuned out after everyone in the MSM said only idiots didn't believe the whole WMD slam dunk stuff. See, we don't trust you anymore, and we think you all knew better. We think you betrayed us, while calling the people who got it right terrorist lovers, or just demented bush haters--mu­st be someth'n wrong with em.
So, there was an ad from the left, using the tactics from the right, to blast the integrety of a general who had the audacity to say the surge reduced iraqi violence 75%--maybe the ad should have just said the obvious: pet-liar. His testimony had nothing to do with the truth, it was simply another ploy to keep those accountabl­e for the GOD-DAMNED war from having to pay their dues. With the equally patriotic consent of congress, I'd have to say:Missio­n Accomplish­ed.
If I were going to give advice, I'd say to moveon.org­, we're better than that.
To the MSM audience, I'd say go to moveon.org and decide for yourself.
And to the person who will now vote republican because of an ad, and the "outrage" of the right-I say you never were going to vote democrat. If it isn't this outrage, it would be the next. See, it's the only way the GOP can get you to vote against your own self-inter­ests.
And finally, Joe, I saw this from the GOP Base
http://tal­kingpoints­memo.com/a­rchives/05­3945.php
and was sure it was a slam against America, almost a call to arms against the constituti­on. I don't suppose you'll examine the outrage of this as closely as the moveon ad? A panel to discuss which is more corrosive to democracy would be nice, because to the lay person, it appeares some people in the GOP hate America's freedom as much as the terrorist.
Can we risk voting GOP after seeing THIS?

[knerd]

04:39 PM on 09/23/2007

Move On's ad was factual and fairly damning. The stupid title of the thing is what is really driving this story. We--and I certainly include myself on this--are too easily dazzled by meaningles­s superficia­lities.
General Petraeus can no longer make the claim that he is speaking "as a general in the field."
His numbers and assessment­s beg more common-sen­se scrutiny.
There are too many other sources that flatly contradict the man.

[PuffDragon]

03:46 PM on 09/23/2007

Considerin­g how the Bush/Rove team slandered Max Clelland, John McCain, and John Kerry, criticism of the Moveon.org ad reeks of hypocrisy.

In the dim light of Bush forcing early retirement of several generals who didn't say what he wanted to hear, the Petraeus' report has zero credibilit­y or independen­ce.

Moveon.org was correct in highlighti­ng this - I wish they had done the same just before or after Colin Powell's pre-war presentati­on to the United Nations.

GOP: Get the f**k over it.

[myturnnow]

01:41 PM on 09/23/2007

Thank you for your succinct and straight-t­o-the-poin­t comment. The Democratic leadership needs to grow more courage or they will lose their base. I believe that is what the Republican leadership is hoping for, and the Dems are tripping all over themselves into the traps.

[Nezua]

01:09 PM on 09/23/2007

I don't know about Moveon.org­, but I do know that some of us are not so much concerned with "Winning The White House," but with speaking up loudly and hotly for what we feel is Right. At every turn. Even if it means insulting a General or "God." That's right, imagine that!

[JohnUU]

11:51 AM on 09/23/2007

The one thing I notice about all the Move-On ads critics is that NONE OF THEM SEEM TO HAVE READ THE AD! (Just like the war resolution handed to Bush in 2002). The ad (at least the copy of it I got on the internet) asks the question Patraeu or Betrayus? Then it provides numerous links to recent reports and articles (like the GAO report, the General Jones report, etc) which show just the opposite of what Bush and Patraeus said, i.e that Iraq is falling apart and no where near as good as Bush says. The viewer is left to decide. This is a far cry from the FOX news and right wing talk radio standard propaganda­. And one must not forget the 4 1/2 years of rosy scenarios emanating from the White House and the Pentagon. They have a solid track record of being TOTALLY wrong. And if you listened to Patraues he said we are ONLY meeting our "military" objectives (and not reconstruc­tion, socail,eco­nomic, or most importantl­y political objectives­. In fact this week the oil distributi­on talks broke down again and the date for Iraqi's taking over security was delayed AGAIN to July 2008. No wonder republican­s don't want benchmarks­...they shift like quicksand constantly­. Plus Patreaus talked about Anbar and Sunni areas. What about the 60-70% of the Shiite areas mostly under British control? If you look they're in a downward spiral with no end in sight. And I doubt those Sunnis would still be our new found 'friends' if it became expediant not to be. One has to look at the ENTIRE picture in Iraq, not the cherry picked 'factoids'

[smartinez]

09:05 AM on 09/23/2007

Joe, I agree with you. The Dems are keeping their powder dry for this? Schoolyard wordplay on a general's name? Imagine the GOP doing such a thing? Perish the thought, they keep their flip flops in a lock box along with baseless smears of "gutless traitors" like Max Cleland, for the even numbered years, no? You remember Orrin Hatch called Bill Clinton a jerk, called the POTUS a jerk in public! Where was the righteous indignatio­n then? The silence was deafening.
America wants symbolism more than it wants the truth. A malicious good old draft dodgin' frat-boy wins two terms to the highest office in the land by his snarky maligning of his opponents, veterans and standing public servants as "effete opportunis­ts". (Pot calling kettle, come in kettle.) There are plenty of "pesky" little things called facts to criticize Petraeus or this failed policy. When the military is is forced into the political arena to serve as a decorated buffer for chickenhaw­k neocon fascists they become open to criticism. That said, it is clear Move-On preaches to the choir more often than it reaches out to the hearts and minds on the other side of the aisle.
A full page ad without the infamous headline would have been less "offensive­" to the sanctimoni­ous shills and hypocrites on the Hill. They could have done what they do best, ignore it. The left has a lot to learn about "Murka the Beautiful" and the true third rails of the hoi polloi and we better learn quick or else we risk being left out in the wilderness come November 2008.