Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tom Davis and the Politics of MoveOn Bashing

It's the ad that will never die.

After two weeks of non-stop press coverage of this ad, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) is seeking to stir the pot again -- requesting a House hearing on the fact that MoveOn.org was accidentally given a discounted ad rate for the controversial ad attacking Gen. David H. Petraeus.

In a letter dated Sept. 24 and sent to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Davis said that the explanation offered for the pricing mixup by the New York Times public editor was unacceptable. "The New York Times' credibility on this subject is questionable," wrote Davis. "It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct. You have repeatedly challenged the public statements of administration and private industry officials and sought testimony under oath. It is time for you to give equal treatment to The New York Times."

A hearing should be held, argued Davis, to find out "whether the discount was a deliberate attempt to subsidize MoveOn.org's message" and "whether the campaign finance laws prohibiting such discounts are effective and enforceable." (It was the second letter Davis had sent on the matter; the first one is available here.)

Davis's letter comes one day after the piece by the Times' public editor was published and a statement was issued by MoveOn.org Executive Director Eli Pariser in which he said the the group would pay the Times the difference between the rate MoveOn was charged ($65,000) and rate they should have been charged ($142,083). "The Public Editor's column makes crystal clear that at no time did MoveOn have any reason to believe that it was receiving from the Times anything other than the normal and usual charges for the advertisement," said Pariser.

As always, politics is at work here.

Davis is an all-but-announced candidate for the Senate seat being vacated by John Warner (R-Va.) in 2008. It's likely that Davis will face off in either a primary or convention battle with former Gov. Jim Gilmore for the Republican nomination. The race is largely being cast as an ideological battle, with the moderate Davis on one side and the more conservative Gilmore on the other. The winner will go on to face Mark Warner, the former governor who is almost certain to be the Democrats' nominee.

What better way for Davis to bolster his conservative credentials than leading the charge (or one of the charges) in Congress against MoveOn and the New York Times -- two leading bogeymen of the right?

The broader question is whether this is an isolated incident or whether we can expect more attempts by Republican candidates to use MoveOn to either strengthen their conservative bona fides or attack their Democratic opponents as liberals. We tend to think the latter option is far more likely, as Republicans are struggling to find places in the current political environment where they can play offense; the MoveOn ad is seen as a rare chance for them.

By Chris Cillizza  |  September 24, 2007; 3:32 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: IL-II: Another GOP Open Seat
Next: Clinton as the Insiders' Shoo-in

Comments

more candidates should have vaginas

Posted by: Anonymous | September 27, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

Posted by: Ajay Jain, Dallas, USA | September 25, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition



By Mark Sauer
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

September 23, 2007

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton: "The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media. But this administration is immune to good advice."


Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste: "I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back."
The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.
What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.

In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change.

When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.

It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.

But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.

"The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media," said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. "But this administration is immune to good advice."

Eaton has two sons serving in Afghanistan and Iraq; his father, an Air Force pilot, was shot down and killed over Laos in 1969. He said his frustration began festering in 2003, when he was assigned to build the Iraqi army from scratch. His internal requests for more equipment and properly trained instructors went unheeded, he said.

While on active duty, Eaton did not criticize his civilian bosses - almost to a man, the generals agree active-duty officers have no business doing that. But he was candid in media interviews. Building an Iraqi army, he warned, would take years, and the effort might never succeed.

In 2004, he was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus - now the military commander in Iraq - and reassigned stateside. Sensing his once-promising Army career had foundered, Eaton retired Jan. 1, 2006.

SPEAKING OUT
Military historians say that before the Iraq conflict, only a handful of active or retired U.S. military officers had publicly criticized civilian leaders' conduct of a war. Some examples:

In 1864, former Union Army Gen. George McClellan declared the Civil War a failure, called for a peace convention that would leave slavery intact, and ran for president against President Lincoln.

In the 1930s, retired Gen. Smedley Butler - who had spent 33 years in the Marine Corps - wrote a book calling war "a racket" and toured the country labeling civilian leaders who prosecute wars "capitalistic gangsters."

In 1951, President Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur for openly challenging U.S. civilian leadership.

In May 1966, retired Gen. David Shoup, former commandant of the Marine Corps, said this about the escalating war in Vietnam: "I believe if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own ... not one crammed down their throats by the Americans."

Retired four-star Gen. Wesley Clark, supreme NATO commander during President Clinton's Kosovo campaign, criticized President George W. Bush's handling of Iraq and ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.


Two months later, on the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion, Eaton criticized the administration in an opinion piece in The New York Times.

"I didn't think my op-ed would be a big deal," he said. "It certainly turned out to be otherwise."

Eaton said he wrote the piece because he believed that three pillars of our democratic system had failed:

The Bush administration ignored alarms raised by him and other commanders on the ground; the Republican-controlled Congress had failed to exercise oversight; and the media had abdicated its watchdog role.

"As we look back, it appears that without realizing it, we were reacting to a constitutional crisis," Eaton said in a recent interview.

Some of Eaton's colleagues, both active and retired, endorsed his decision to speak out. Others thought he had stepped out of bounds. He became persona non grata with ethics instructors at the U.S. Military Academy, his alma mater.

Eaton said he has no regrets.

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq, chronicled his painful journey from stalwart soldier to outspoken critic in a post on the political Web site Think Progress this month.

Once heralded by many military observers as headed for appointment to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Batiste began his journey of introspection after he retired with two stars in 2005.

The self-described arch-conservative and lifelong Republican made the "gut-wrenching" decision to end his 31-year military career in order to "speak out on behalf of soldiers and their families."

"I had a moral obligation and a duty to do so," Batiste wrote. "I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back."

Code of silence

It is rare in U.S. history for even retired generals to step outside the chain of command and criticize the nation's civilian leaders.

That was true even at the time of the unpopular Vietnam War.

Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, said several generals who served in Vietnam now regret they didn't go public when it might have done the nation some good.

"That has encouraged generals today to voice their unhappiness," Bacevich said.

LAURA EMBRY / Union-Tribune
Retired Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson said he was surprised that so many retired generals have spoken out against the Iraq war. "They may sound off as they please, but I don't approve of that," said Richardson, 93, who lives in North Park.
The once-sacred line between private and public opinion began to blur during the 1991 Gulf War, Bacevich said, when retired generals appeared for the first time as TV network analysts.

"But that war was brief, it seemed to go very well and the generals' comments were almost uniformly positive," he said. "This war is very long, it has not gone well and that's a main reason we're hearing the voices we're hearing."

For retired Brig. Gen. John Johns, the decision to finally stand up against the administration was a deeply personal one.

"My wife lost her first husband in Vietnam," said Johns, who taught leadership and ethics at West Point.

"To learn later that President Lyndon Johnson and (then-Secretary of Defense) Robert McNamara knew as early as 1965 that we could not win there, that hurts her deeply to this day."

Six months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Johns, who retired in 1978, agonized over whether to go public with a paper calling the impending war "one of the great blunders of history."

He sent it to retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and to Pete McCloskey, the moderate-Republican former congressman from California who had opposed the Vietnam War.

Advertisement"At that time, they did not want to go public," Johns said.
Zinni has since become one of the most war's most vociferous critics, and McClosky now calls for bringing the troops home.

"And I was not convinced that the invasion would not be stopped internally," Johns said. "Zinni was close to (then-Secretary of State) Colin Powell; I believed sane heads would prevail."

But Powell's notoriously inaccurate speech to the United Nations in February 2003 "sealed the deal," Johns said, and he knew the war was unstoppable. "I was very disappointed he did that. Powell was used."

Many sleepless nights, long talks with his wife and solitary walks followed, said the veteran combat officer.

But Johns didn't reach his tipping point until 2005, when a longtime friend, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, invited him to discuss the war at tiny Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia.

"Four out of five of us retired military panelists there said it was a moral duty for us to speak out in a democracy against policies which you think are unwise," Johns said. "The time was right."

The lifelong Republican-leaning conservative joined a pair of liberal organizations opposed to the war and supported the Democrats' call to get the United States out of Iraq.

"I appreciate those who hold to the old school of not speaking out," said Johns, 79. "I hope they will appreciate my deeply held feelings that led to my decision to do so."

Reaction mixed

One of those who falls into that old-school camp is Navy Vice Adm. David Richardson.

A one-time adviser to Pentagon chiefs, Richardson, who retired in 1972, said that while retired generals are "entirely within their rights under the First Amendment," he was quite surprised to see so many speaking out against the Iraq war.

"They may sound off as they please, but I don't approve of that," said Richardson, 93, who served in World War II, Korea, and commanded an aircraft-carrier task force during the Vietnam War. He now lives in North Park and remains active in military circles.

"When we are at war, voices that may give aid and comfort to the enemy can cost American blood," Richardson said. "I would not want what I said to in any way affect our troops' morale and effectiveness."

Gard, who retired from the military in 1981, displayed a stoicism typical of old soldiers when asked about his decision to publicly criticize the conduct of an ongoing war.

"I did some serious soul-searching," Gard said simply.

A West Point graduate with a doctorate in politics and government from Harvard, Gard saw combat in Korea and Vietnam.

Gard's introspection ultimately led him to conclude that patriotism means more than following orders and keeping complaints inside the military.

"When you feel the country - to its extreme detriment - is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out," he said.

It may not have been that way during the Vietnam era, Gard added. "But times have changed."

"

Posted by: support the troops | September 25, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"'The Revolt of the Generals'
By: Steve Benen @ 11:02 AM - PDT Rudy Giuliani recently argued that U.S. military generals, by virtue of their service, necessarily have more credibility than practically anyone else. With that in mind, I wonder what Giuliani and others who share his approach to foreign policy have to say in response to the 20 generals who have defied tradition and rejected the Bush policy in Iraq.

The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.

What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.

In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

It's become fashionable in some circles to believe that patriotism demands uniformity. If you support the troops, the argument goes, then you support their mission. To even question the merit of a war while combat is ongoing is, to some, a sign of disloyalty.

These generals, thankfully, believe the opposite -- they have a duty to speak out, and they will not shirk their responsibilities.

"

More to follow

Posted by: www.crooksandliars.com | September 25, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Davis is definately running for the senate.According to a recent Survey USA poll, he'd better get to raising money. He has an issue, here. 46% of Va. residents are "unfamiliar" with Tom Davis. 31% of Va. residents have a "neutral" opinion of Davis. That is 77% of voters who do not really know Tom Davis. 13% view him as favorable and 10% view Davis as unfavorable. Compared to his primary oponent, Jim Gilmore he's in good shape. 19% of Va. residents view Gilmore as favorable and 34% view him as unfavorable. 31% are neutral and 15% of residents are unfamiliary with him. Mark Warner has a 50% favorable rating, 14% unfavorable, 31% neutral and 5% are even unfamiliar with M. Warner.

What's this mean? Most residents know M. Warner and they like him or consider him okay. Most residents know Gilmore and do not like him or consider him okay. People just do not know much about Tom Davis at all, 77%. Davis has a shot to define himself, Gilmore is screwed over and M. Warner is fairly popular. Interested senate race a brewin.

Posted by: reason | September 25, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"MSNBC asks about "GOP hypocrisy?" in denunciations of MoveOn but silence on Limbaugh's "Senator Betrayus" comments
Summary: While discussing what he suggested might be "hypocrisy when it comes to political attacks" with regard to a MoveOn.org ad headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" and comments by Rush Limbaugh about "Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel," MSNBC's David Shuster asked Rep. Marsha Blackburn, "Where was the outrage when Rush Limbaugh said this about Republican Senator Chuck Hagel over one of the senator's stances on Iraq?"

As the blog Crooks & Liars noted, on the September 24 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, guest host David Shuster began an interview with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) by noting that there was a "Republican outcry" over MoveOn.org's September 10 advertisement headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" that appeared in The New York Times." Shuster suggested that "there's a bigger question ... of hypocrisy when it comes to political attacks," and asked Blackburn: "Where was the outrage when Rush Limbaugh said this about Republican Senator Chuck Hagel [NE] over one of the senator's stances on Iraq?" Shuster then read comments, previously highlighted by Media Matters for America, that Rush Limbaugh made on the January 25 broadcast (subscription required) of his nationally syndicated radio show: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

Shuster asked Blackburn, "Do you want to take this opportunity to condemn what Rush Limbaugh said about Chuck Hagel?" Blackburn responded: "[W]hat I want to do is talk about The New York Times." Shuster then repeatedly asked Blackburn about whether the Limbaugh comment was "wrong" and what the "difference" was between Limbaugh's comment and the MoveOn advertisement. After several such queries, Blackburn stated: "Rush Limbaugh should not have done that."

From the September 24 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

SHUSTER: Do you want to take this opportunity to condemn what Rush Limbaugh said about Chuck Hagel?

BLACKBURN: You know, what I want to do is talk about The New York Times. And probably, Rush --


SHUSTER: Well --

BLACKBURN: Rush Limbaugh could have gotten by without saying that, but he was referencing a call --

SHUSTER: Could have gotten by? It was wrong, wasn't it?

BLACKBURN: He was referencing what a caller said and --

SHUSTER: Right, but it was wrong for a caller or for Rush Limbaugh to call Chuck Hagel "Senator Betrayus," right?

BLACKBURN: But Rush Limbaugh did not go in and buy an ad and place it with The New York Times and get a special, preferred rate and --

SHUSTER: But --

BLACKBURN: -- turn around --

SHUSTER: So there's a difference between buying an ad in The New York Times and Rush Limbaugh hearing something that he likes to hear from one of his viewers and repeating it on the air. What's the distinction? Why is there a distinction?

BLACKBURN: Rush Limbaugh should not have done that.

Earlier in the show, Shuster previewed the interview with Blackburn by calling it a "Hypocrisy Watch," and asking, "[W]here is the outrage over conservative radio show host comments about a Republican senator? Are Republicans playing a risky game of political hypocrisy?" When Shuster introduced the interview and talked about the "bigger question ... of hypocrisy," the words "GOP Hypocrisy?" appeared on-screen.

On September 25, MSNBC's website highlighted the video of Shuster's interview with Blackburn, placing it on the front page of the website for the Tucker program. The text highlighting the video said that Blackburn "discusse[d] the inconsistency of the defense of the attacks against MoveOn.org for its 'General Betray Us' ad."

Additionally, on the September 24 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, host Keith Olbermann named Limbaugh the "winner" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for his "Senator Betrayus" comments. Olbermann noted that Limbaugh "called the MoveOn.org 'Betray Us' ad 'contemptible' and 'indecent,' " adding: "Guess who seems to have been the first to introduce the pun on General Petraeus' name to national broadcasting?" Olbermann read Limbaugh's January 25 remarks and stated: "So not only is your outrage about the use of the phrase 'betray us' to question patriotism or duty phony, it's your phrase." Limbaugh frequently appears on Olbermann's "Worst Person" list, as Media Matters has noted (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).

Olbermann also named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the "runner-up" for "Worst Person in the World" for, as Media Matters documented, O'Reilly's claim: "I respect dissent on the Iraq war." O'Reilly was responding to a viewer who had written to his show asking that he "stop labeling those who criticize our continued stay in Iraq as anti-American." As Olbermann and Media Matters noted, O'Reilly claimed that such criticism was "from far-left Loonville." Olbermann then cited several examples, previously documented by Media Matters, in which O'Reilly had attacked individuals and the media with whom he disagreed on the Iraq war:

On the September 10 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly asserted: "I know that MoveOn is rooting against us." He continued: "The leftists are rooting against their own country."
On the August 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "the cut-and-run club, led by [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] and Congressman John Murtha [D-PA], continues to pound the drum of defeat in Iraq." He later said that PBS journalist Bill Moyers "symbolizes those Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq based upon a hatred of all things Bush."
On the May 2 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, "everybody in the country [was] behind it, except the kooks."
From the September 24 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:

SHUSTER: Also, tonight, a special Shuster edition of "Hypocrisy Watch." Republicans keep talking about that "Betray Us" ad, but they have not said a peep about a similar statement made by Rush Limbaugh. Get out the lighter fluid because we've got a grilling for you later in the hour.

[...]

SHUSTER: And coming up, Republicans blast MoveOn.org for their ad attacking the top U.S. general in Iraq. But where is the outrage over conservative radio show host comments about a Republican senator? Are Republicans playing a risky game of political hypocrisy?

[...]

SHUSTER: The Republican outcry is beginning to die down over that MoveOn ad, the one running in The New York Times that posed the question -- "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" But there's a bigger question left unanswered, a question of hypocrisy when it comes to political attacks. Where was the outrage when Rush Limbaugh said this about Republican Senator Chuck Hagel over one of the senator's stances on Iraq? Limbaugh said, "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel of Nebraska. We got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

Here to discuss all this is Marsha Blackburn, a Republican congresswoman from Tennessee. And, Congresswoman, thanks for coming in.

BLACKBURN: Good to be with you.

SHUSTER: Do you want to take this opportunity to condemn what Rush Limbaugh said about Chuck Hagel?

BLACKBURN: You know, what I want to do is talk about The New York Times. And probably, Rush --

SHUSTER: Well --

BLACKBURN: Rush Limbaugh could have gotten by without saying that, but he was referencing a call --

SHUSTER: Could have gotten by? It was wrong, wasn't it?

BLACKBURN: He was referencing what a caller said and --

SHUSTER: Right, but it was wrong for a caller or for Rush Limbaugh to call Chuck Hagel "Senator Betrayus," right?

BLACKBURN: But Rush Limbaugh did not go in and buy an ad and place it with The New York Times and get a special, preferred rate and --

SHUSTER: But --

BLACKBURN: -- turn around --

SHUSTER: So there's a difference between buying an ad in The New York Times and Rush Limbaugh hearing something that he likes to hear from one of his viewers and repeating it on the air. What's the distinction? Why is there a distinction?

BLACKBURN: Rush Limbaugh should not have done that. But Rush Limbaugh did not go out and buy an ad with -- and circumvent The New York Times. It takes two weeks for them to tell the truth on this, and we find out that they did get a favored rate. They did choose --

SHUSTER: Yeah, but they didn't know they got a favored rate --

BLACKBURN: But they did choose.

SHUSTER: --and as soon as they found out they got a favored rate, they wrote a check.

BLACKBURN: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah. I don't believe that. I think they did get --

SHUSTER: I understand that this is an issue that -- you're very concerned, of course, about the MoveOn ad, is that right?

BLACKBURN: Everybody is concerned about the MoveOn ad. And everybody is concerned about what seems to be the violation of the -- the public trust by The New York Times. Look, we all know that their circulation is down, that their stock is down, that they -- I think it was last year fired 500 people. Everyone is aware of that. But my goodness, but to find out now that they are fire selling their ad space.

From the September 24 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: First, time for Countdown's "Worst Persons in the World."

Senator David Vitter [R] of Louisiana takes the bronze. Sneaked an earmark into an appropriations bill, $100,000 to the Louisiana Family Forum, quote, "to develop a plan to promote better science education." By better, the Louisiana Family Forum evidently turns out to mean better be without Darwin in it. They want creationism taught. Senator Vitter, Senator Vitter, tell us again the story of when the Lord created callgirls.

Your runner up is Bill-O. Somebody wrote in to ask that he stop labeling those who criticize our continued stay in Iraq as anti-American. Bill explains he "welcomes dissent on this program" and he promptly insisted the writer was, quote, "from the far-left loonville." Yes, that's welcoming dissent. And so is claiming, quote, "the leftists are rooting against their own country." And so was calling Senator Obama the leading "cut-and-run club." And so was saying Bill Moyers symbolizes those "who want their country to lose in Iraq." And so was branding anybody against the war at its start "kooks." And so was concluding that MSNBC "delights in showing Iraqi violence."

You welcome dissent as long as nobody disagrees with you.

Who can top that? Well, our winner, comedian Rush Limbaugh. He called the MoveOn.org "Betray Us" ad contemptible and indecent. Guess who seems to have been the first to introduce the pun on General Petraeus' name to national broadcasting? January 25th of this year, he gurgled, quote, "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air. Got a new name for Senator Hagel of Nebraska. We got General Petraeus and we've got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."

So not only is your outrage about the use of the phrase "betray us" to question patriotism or duty phony, it's your phrase. Comedian Rush Limbaugh, big flaming fraud, today's Worst Person in the World!

--B.J.L.
"

Posted by: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709250003?f=h_latest | September 25, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"MSNBC, get that man his own show!

Download (6007) | Play (9303) Download (2127) | Play (4889)

Shuster: "Let's talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?"

Blackburn:"The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh - from my district I - I do not know his name -"

Shuster: "Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn't know the name?"

Blackburn: "I - I, you know, I - I do not know why I did not know the name..." [Snip]

Shuster: "But you weren't appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what's going on with the New York Times and Move On.org." [Snip]

Shuster: "But don't you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you're so focused on an ad -- when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn't even know his name."
"

Posted by: WWW.CROOKSANDLIARS.COM | September 25, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

I too like cheese

Posted by: rufus | September 25, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The White House is looking at deterring the Iranian nuclear program with new sanctions. What measures have been proposed?

Cutting off two-thirds of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's name any time he is mentioned in the press

Revoking the country's membership in the axis of evil

Ceasing production of monogrammed "U.S. & Iran: A Perfect Match" matchbooks


Miss America not including Iran on world tour

Jesse Jackson to be sent, without an interpreter, to negotiate

Copyrighting the phrase "The Great Satan" and suing Iran every time it is used to refer to U.S.

Putting restrictions on how much Iran is allowed to hate the U.S. at any given moment

Will stop selling them uranium

Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2007 7:44 AM | Report abuse

i like cheese

Posted by: Wendy | September 25, 2007 3:38 AM | Report abuse

JoshA is right on the money. Not since the fleeting revelation that Janet Jackson has a nipple has our nation faced a crisis that threatened to tear us apart like this.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 25, 2007 3:30 AM | Report abuse

Sounds to me like Davis is running for Senate here--the NY Times is a tried and true right-wing whipping boy.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | September 25, 2007 3:27 AM | Report abuse

The MoveOn advertisement is the greatest threat the Republic has ever faced. We must all devote all of our time to this issue, and ignore distractions like Iraq, health care, and the economy.

Posted by: JoshA | September 25, 2007 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Jane,
"and it's real grassroots.." Really? MoveOn was founded by wealthy power couple Joan Blades and Wes Boyd. It has been funded by, among others, George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund, Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee. How this makes MoveOn anything other than a typical corporate funded 527 PAC is a mystery to me.

Posted by: Dave! | September 25, 2007 12:09 AM | Report abuse

" If america votes a gop or clinton NOW. I'm gone."

And to think I wasn't sure I wanted HRC to win. Now, if you promise to take both yourself and KOZ to someplace without internet access I'll sign up to become an HRC campaign worker.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 11:42 PM | Report abuse

"I'm a new born. First time, to be here at last.

Should I have to grow up fast, and suffer our pain.

Huslin harder than the generations here before the game.

Going through the same BS as our fathers. Reading history, but who's the authors.

For some the game is easy. To most of us the game is much harder.

Never give up hope.

Prisoners rise rise rise."

I am

(GONE)

Posted by: nas | September 24, 2007 9:31 PM | Report abuse

lAST POST. We can cut your chains. WE can free you. If you refuse to leave the cave, chains cut, then who is to blame.

All the regulars in this blog know what time it is due to my posts, and others. Now what are you going to do? Are you going to sit there with hed in sand? Are you going to vote, or not?

But what staying in the cave with chains cut IS WORSE than not knowing about the chain and being a slave. Willful ignorance does not save you. Hiding your head in the sand only hurts you, it CAN'T help.

So do what you will. If nothing else, I hope everyone votes. Majority rules. Just don't start up the terrorist tactics again once the gop is swept for politics for a generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Posted by: RUFUS | September 24, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

as you can see congress's approval is higher amoung repugs than it is as a whole. Dem's are frustrated at the lack of spine by congress. The repugs are happy. I wonder why

"Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average: Spread -39.2%

Approve26.4% Disapprove65.6%"

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Forgets NOVA. He is running after a train that left the station and NOVA will punish him for it in the general even if it helps him get the republican nom.

Posted by: Davis | September 24, 2007 7:04 PM | Report abuse

this is my problem zouk and gop. Say a word like "Betry" or F@@@" and you get fired or punished. Lie and propogate with the results being hundreds of thousands of MURDERS and... what.

you get rich? If this is the case and america is with it. If america votes a gop or clinton NOW. I'm gone. Europe. America deserves the fate of teh babylon it has become if the gop(clinton) wins again.

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

www.votevets.org

"VoteVets.org On Petraeus Testimony
Jon Soltz, Iraq war veteran, and chairman of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans group, VoteVets.org, released the following statement today:

"The president is hiding behind General Petraeus, and that was abundantly clear today. General Petraeus was given an order - find a military solution for Iraq where there is none, and without concern for troop overextension or the larger war on terror. General Petraeus followed his orders, giving the president what he wanted to hear, and now the president will hide behind that to justify his failure as a commander in chief."

"General Petraeus has a very limited area of concern - the US military in Iraq - and his testimony today reflected that."

"When one looks at the grander scale, past just the military in Iraq, the picture is dismal, and becoming a critical danger. From the Government Accounting Office report to Congressional Research Service report to the report by General Jones, it is clear that there has been no political reconciliation overall in Iraq or increased security, despite our military's strongest efforts. From Admiral Fallon to Admiral Mullen, those above General Petraeus in the chain of command are telling the president that this war is hurting our military and our global security. The president has chosen to ignore all of this, in favor of a report based on a false premise with faulty findings, signed by a General with a very limited scope of concern. Call it denial, or call it stubbornness, or whatever you want; it all boils down to the same thing - this president still refuses to listen to those he needs to listen to, in favor of those who tell him what he wants to hear."
"

Posted by: What the troops are saying about the petreus report | September 24, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

free speech is dead (for any non-gop people)

the republicans killed it. They rally against PC while silencing any and everything they disagree wiht. Last post :)

"!@#$%! No, He Won't GoEditor of Colorado State University newspaper refuses to resign amid sharp criticism of f-bomb Bush editorial
"

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

I hear you zouk. the moderates are cowards, that's for sure. My problem with you, and this is my last post, is hypocricy. If the right would hold your own to the same standard ars you hold the left, I wouldn't have a problem. Sh*T, I may have stood next to you. My problem is, you people do not practice what you preach. If you did you would have stopped bush. If you practiced what you preached I would never have bloged at all. I came here to balance out fox and their propogandists, what little I could.

So if you would hold Rush/Fox/Savage/Ingram/Malkin/hannity to the same standard you hold moveon, I WOULDN'T BE here. I wouldn't have a problem, because we wouldn't be in iraq right now, if not for fox and rush.

Like I said zouk. We should be working together,as americans. That is what you gop'ers will never understand. Stop being hypocrites. Enforce the same rules for your party as you cry and whine about on the dem's, and I don't have a problem. When you start lie about and defend what you preach agaisnt on the other side, you look like a hypocrite.

that's how you people can fix the country, if you so choose zouk. Hold your people to the same stanard you just held moveon to. I mean you got consensus on moveon, right. Why not Rush? Why not Fox? why not malkin? Why not the same standard to hannity?

Do that and we can build zouk. Or continue they same as we've been doing now for another 4 years , and another and another.

Maybe that is the gop plan. Lie spin and discredit. Divide and conquer. That is your right zouk. But think about the future. How will histroy record you hypocrites? Think on it. you must give zouk. you must compromise. You can't have everything your way everytime, like a 8 year old. You must compromise SOEMTIMES..

Hold your propogandists to the same standard you hold truth preachers like moveon and we don't have a problem. Don't and the war continues. But the gop has no one to blame but themselves for whatever befalls them.

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

oh look, a flame war between rufus and trotsky zouk.

guys, everyone else has left the room. i wish i could give you each a pistol and let you work it out between yourselves... so the rest of us could have a little space to talk.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

It's called an "in-kind donation" and needs to be reported to the FEC. - Zouk

Actual Coward, And maybe you could tell us what MoveOn is running for that would make this an in kind donation?

I love the GOPers on here who are ranting about a private contractual business deal between two parties. Isn't this what free enterprise is all about, you guys?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, we are working together. I am trying to get all your views out there. the more people see what you and moveon and Hillary are up to, the lower your ratings go. If you thought Olbermann, NYT and Air America was bad, take a look at the Dem congress - 11% last I checked. but I repeat myself - NYT, hillary, moveon and 11%. all one entity - coincidence?

Once everyone realizes that there is no Bush on the ballot, all the wind will be gone from your sails. the cold, cruel reality of clinton (I repeat myself again) will sink in and the NOT-Hillary candidate will soar into office. the scortched earth policy of the clintons will not work well because only she (the Devil) can survive all that heat and the obvious alternative will be a classic good/evil choice.

and good always eventually defeats evil. Like we will defeat the quadists. Despite all your Liberal good intentions (and I understand it feels good to be against war) it is short sighted not to eliminate our enemy when and where we are presented with the opportunity. history can teach you this if you pay attention.

Nice knowing you rufas. Keep up the good work. I won't go so far to say you will be missed. Can you take Ignorant coward with you so we can have our blog back? I honestly think you are a good hearted person, just a little naive.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"trotsky, Team Chimp is hiding behind Petraeus. His report was written by the WH. He gave GOP-only briefings in April."

Right. Petreus gave his report to congres. then proceded to go to the U.K and give a compleatly differant, much bleeker, report.

This is all a joke. to bad hundreds of thousnads are dead as a result. It's all a big horrible joke around the world. How long will 30% of america continue to live in a cave. that is the game. How is with america and who are treasonous sell-out traitors. this is the game. The butt of the joke is the gop. your children are not as stupid as you. the gop is about to be rendered obsolete for thrity years. No amount of attacks on liberals or show votes( liek the move on vote) will save you know. Shoudl we vote on everything fox says daily? Should we put rush limbaugh on the stand everyday. How about Will (the bloody) kristol. Should we censor everything he says.

Remember what you are doing gop when the dem's are in power. Remember how you stifled debate for 5 years. when you are back in the closet remember this. No more whining and complaining abou tnot being listened to. Remember how you cowards and fascists acted when the shoe was on the other foot.

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

trotsky, Team Chimp is hiding behind Petraeus. His report was written by the WH. He gave GOP-only briefings in April.

If he is going to function as an partisan extension of the administration, he needs to be treated as a partisan extension of the administration.

Is that a shame? You bet. Bet politicizing each branch of the US govt is what Team Chimp is all about. Petraeus is their guy like few in the Army will tolerate. That's why a Navy guy (Adm Fallon) is running two land wars: The top Army brass can't retire fast enough.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | September 24, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

post as me all you want you fascist. It's all you got. Lie spin and discredit. You speak on the facts, you look like a fool everytime. Good news zouk, you coward. After today you can post as me all day if you want. You can make me look like a fool all day. To bad I won't be here to see it. But how does that help you aor your party? Playing elementary school games and trying to discredit ME. How does that help YOU. I'll never understand why you fascists do what you do. I don't think you really hate me as you people claim. I think you really hate yourselves.

Your free now zouk. But without mewhat are you? Without Fox what am I. My only goal is to apply the same standards you are applying to the left, to the right. you want me gone, I want Fox/ Rush/Malkin/Savage and so on gone. We should be working together zouk. Why does your fascist street only run one way. We should be working toghter to clean up the coutnry. Why will you not hold your own accountable. Do that we have no problem. Why are you people trying to destroy the nation?

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Rufas _ I didn't expect you to understand. you are the non-thinking moveon constituency in a nutshell. (literally and figuratively)

you can't distinguish between an active duty officer and a retired politician looking for talking points.

Kerry returned to slander his fellow soldiers. Murtha called Marines cold blooded killers, who were later acquited. Clelend voted against the interests of the military, his own personal history was irrelevant at that point. Mc Cain was a POW but it doesn't mean a thing now, what matters is his stance on the current war. Webb has now voted on several measures and obliviated his prior record. He is now what he votes. It is nothing personal - it is politics.

But professional soldiers are not politicians and can't fight back. Leave them out of it until they are either civilians or run for election.

Is that really so hard to understand, or just inconveneient?

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

what about Pat tillman (murdered). What about Jon Stoltz (silecned). What about adam kokesh (arrested)

What about aah h forget it. Support the troops. forget these lying propogating fascists. Zouk is probably one of bush's patriot act cronies sent here to divide and conquer. To ruin the debate. Zouk is nothing but a fascist. The time of saying something, anything and winning are over. You need better points to win now. No longer can you just be more aggressive and loader saying "I know you are but what am I".

That got us in the situation we're in now. Your partisanship over a BJ started this new american revolution. If the d's don't fix it a new party will. In the meantime, support the troops. Bring them home.

www.votevets.org

www.moveon.org

http://www.gsfp.org/

Peace. The fascists times are over people. Stop fearing them. Even THEY know their time is up. ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Rufas, I thought you were leaving us? Or was that a Dem campaign promise?


the General was the most qualified to report on the progress of the war, along with the ambassador. this report was required by the Dem congress. Remember????It was not political, it was factual. He stated his case very plainly with many good and bad reports of progress. what made it so political was the Dems desperation to have a failure they could use for electoral politics. they announced their views before he even arrived. they knew the surge was working already. but they had to turn the report into some sort of political show instead of a factual report by the expert in the field.

General - does the effort advance our security?

"I don't know."

sounds like a Bush plant to me allright. If you're a tin foil hat Dem.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

fascists fascists everywhere

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"you don't go after servicemen. they are off limits. they are working on your behalf at the direction of the duly elected commander"

What about Kerry. Murtha. What about Pace. What about batiste. What about logan. What about aaah forget. It's not like you are going to follow the same rules you enforce gop.

Posted by: rufus (Former Army Infantry 11B) | September 24, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Um, this is news? What Republican doesn't bash Dems, MoveOn.org & the NYT in their sleep?

Boy is this ever a non-story. Big time.

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | September 24, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

thanh you for a trip into the mind or gop doublethink zouk.

so, in a nutshell. If they parrot gop talking points they are cool. Don't and THEY are the traitors. Ok, if that's the way you want to run a party. Just don't expect us to follow. You can live in a looney world zouk. Just don't get mad if the rest of the world doesn't follow yougop'ers down the rabbit hole. Give my regards to Kim for me. Tell her this isn't goodbye. It's a "I'll see ya later". And I will :)

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president learned that the men's magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland. So Clinton's aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.

Posted by: 1st amend R not us | September 24, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"there is a BIG difference between attacking a poltitician who votes, defends and must come up with policies and stances which are subject to interpretation and the whims of the voters.
"

Bush made petreus a politicain when he brougt him into the political areana, no? I wish he would have kept petreus away from politics. Bush made that decision. Not the lib's. Bush choose to bring him into HIS war debate when he choose the next man to hide behind.

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

You stooopid moron Libs just don't get it. there is a BIG difference between attacking a poltitician who votes, defends and must come up with policies and stances which are subject to interpretation and the whims of the voters.

contrast this to a Uniformed, active duty General who serves the entire nation, trades in numbers, death, mission, honesty, command, integrity.

you don't go after servicemen. they are off limits. they are working on your behalf at the direction of the duly elected commander.

On the other hand, feel free to go after any and all politicians, especially for their votes, their declared views and their announced policies.

If a politicain votes against the military, it does not matter that he was once in the military, it is the votes that count. If a politician returns from duty and slanders his fellow soldiers, it does not matter whether he got a medal sometime.

Once you cross the line from soldier to elected official, your are no longer off limits. If you try to make your service an issue, you can expect to get certain benefits and liabilities with that. you can't just collect the goodies, especially if you have a history of voting against military issues or making brazen statements about the military.

how come you supposed smart Libs can't get this nuance?

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Good for Davis. We know the Dems would be jumping up and down with conspiracy theories if this happened in reverse. The left keeps saying they want accountability in the private sector. However they don't really want it when they get a break. If there is nothing to hide by the democratic party and the NYT, then there is no problem with an investigation.

Posted by: Jon | September 24, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I guess the lying fascists for profit have to make a living. I feel so bad for them. Making millions dividing and lying to teh country they profess to love, for profit. OOOO. I feel so sorry for them.

Nope.

Someone explain to me why they are not treasonous traitors to this nation. Someone explain how this is not treason. Lying to the eldery and out of touch for profit. Choosing party over country. Come on, parting wish. :)

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

So, speaking of Tom Davis, if he runs for Senate instead of defending his House seat, how many GOP retirements does that add up to?

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Before MoveOn's "General Betray Us," there was Limbaugh's "Senator Betrayus"
Summary: Rush Limbaugh has called the MoveOn.org "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent," but months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Senator Chuck Hagel: "Senator Betrayus." Though Limbaugh has taken exception to accusations that he has attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, the "Senator Betrayus" remark is one of several instances in which Limbaugh has done so.
On September 10, MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" critical of Gen. David Petraeus, appeared in The New York Times. On the September 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called the advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent." However, months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Senator Betrayus." On the January 25 broadcast (subscription required) of his radio show, Limbaugh broke from his commentary on an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney on the January 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room to say: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest."

In a September 10 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that the General Betray Us ad "appears to have been borrowed indirectly from Rush Limbaugh and noted that "[a]ccording to a Free Republican [sic: Free Republic] diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel." In the January 26 post Smith cited, Free Republic commenter "Recovering_Democrat" wrote that "Rush said on his show yesterday that a caller suggested the new name for Senator Hagel."

Indeed, on the February 4 edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos told Hagel that Limbaugh "calls you 'Senator Betrayus.' " On the February 5 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh played an audio clip of Stephanopoulos telling Hagel that Limbaugh calls him "Senator Betrayus." Limbaugh didn't disavow the characterization; in fact, Limbaugh said in response to Hagel's comments: "But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. 'Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants,' but didn't dispute the substance of my point."

On the September 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis responded to questions about the MoveOn.org ad by suggesting that the ad was no less outrageous "than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org" and asking "why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism." Fox News co-host and weatherman Steve Doocy said, "I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. Later that day on his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh played audio from Davis' Fox & Friends appearance, and said: "I hope Fox does a program on me. I won't participate in it because I don't do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they're invested in defeat. I've said that it's just -- it's unacceptable, it's indecent the way they attack General Petraeus."

In addition to his "Senator Betrayus" comment, Limbaugh has repeatedly and explicitly attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, as Media Matters for America has documented:

In a commentary segment on the September 7, 2006, broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Limbaugh said, "But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism."
On the August 21, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
On the August 23, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "It's time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you're damn right we're questioning your patriotism." Limbaugh subsequently featured this self-described "brilliant El Rushbo monologue" on his website under the heading, "You're Damn Right, American Left; We're Questioning Your Patriotism."
On the September 17, 2004, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that half of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry's (MA) base "hates the military, hates America, hates Bush, hates the world except for France and Germany."
Additionally, on September 11, Limbaugh referred to terrorist Osama bin Laden as "U -- Ubama -- I'm sorry, Usama," continuing a pattern, which Media Matters for America has documented, of conflating Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with bin Laden.

From the January 25 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Does that sound like Cheney is standing up in righteous indignation and pointing his finger at Blitzer and demanding that he shut up and accusing them doing a hit piece? Does it sound like that at all? No, it doesn't. Next question from Wolf Blitzer. "What if the Senate passes a resolution saying this is not a good idea? Will that stop you?"

CHENEY [audio clip]: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], among others, in his testimony about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, "But we don't agree with the mission you've been given."

LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel. Here's now one final bit -- well, two more. Question from Blitzer: "Here's the problem that you have. The administration, credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the 'last throes,' the comment you made a year and a half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats and a lot of Republicans now are saying that they don't believe you anymore."

From the February 4 edition of ABC's This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week.

LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus."

HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants.

From the February 5 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The word of my [Nobel Peace Prize] nomination just continues to roil drive-by media outlets, and it continued over the weekend. Then, on George Stephanopoulos' show on Sunday, he had Chuck Hagel as his -- as guest. They had this exchange.

[begin audio clip]

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week.

LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus."

HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants.

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. "Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants," but didn't dispute the substance of my point.

From Smith's September 10 Politico blog post:

A footnote to the fuss over MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad, a favored GOP talking point of the day. (Genius? Idiocy? Interested in readers' views.)

Anyway, it also appears to have been borrowed, indirectly, from Rush Limbaugh. According to a Free Republican diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel.

From the September 11 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The Democrats are accusing Petraeus of being a patsy. The Democrats are accusing him of lying. I've suggested to you that if you ever -- 'cause, you know, I'm talented here, folks. I can read the stitches on the fastballs. I can see between the lines. I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, and I am telling you that when they say Petraeus is lying, it means they are. When they say that Petraeus is a puppet, they are.

And I'll tell you who's pulling their strings: MoveOn.org and that -- that contemptible, indecent ad that ran yesterday in The New York Times. The kook, fringe, left-wing blogosphere -- that's who they're afraid of. They're not afraid of U -- Ubama -- I'm sorry, Usama. They are not afraid of the enemy.

From the September 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: Right now, Republicans have condemned the MoveOn.Org ad criticizing General Petraeus. "Betray Us," Petraeus, you know what we're talking about. But what do the Democrats have to say, and how was President Bush's address received across America as well? Time now for a fair and balanced debate. Former special counsel to the President Clinton and author of Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics is Destroying America Lanny Davis joins us live, screen left, appropriately enough. And screen right, former RNC senior adviser Terry Holt. We thank you very much, Terry, for joining us as well.

HOLT: Thank you.

DOOCY: All right, Lanny, let's start with you. None of the -- I know you're familiar with Hillary Rodham Clinton, she wants to be president. She has not come out and denounced this ad. Do you think she should?

DAVIS: I think every single Democrat should say that MoveOn.org using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org who have a right under the First Amendment --

DOOCY: Sure.

DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of -

DOOCY: Right, but Lanny --

DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush's speech last night, which is important.

DOOCY: Well, we are going to get to that. That was our lead story today, but should Hillary denounce it? I know you said all Democrats. Why hasn't she?

DAVIS: Um, I think Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don't know why, but again, you're still focused on Moveon.org rather than President Bush. Why are you, and you said we're going to get to that --

DOOCY: Yeah, we will.

DAVIS: -- but you're still following up on an issue -- why are we -- why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn't Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox & Friends for a second. Why MoveOn.org, which I denounce -- why are you not denouncing Rush Limbaugh questioning my patriotism for disagreeing on the Iraq war?

DOOCY: Lanny -- Lanny -- I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I'll look into it --

DAVIS: Why don't you -- why don't you do a study and invite me back, and we'll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left.

DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you're filibustering. Let's go to Terry. Terry, you're comment on this.

HOLT: Well, I think that MoveOn.org has quickly become one of the largest and most influential special interest groups dominating the Democratic Party, and I think they won't denounce it simply because they're afraid that they'll be denounced by MoveOn.org, who carries with them the perception that they have a stranglehold on the liberal Democratic base. I mean, this is one of those groups that nobody had ever heard of five years ago, and now every politician on the Democratic side runs in fear whenever MoveOn.org utters a word.

From the September 14 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Lanny Davis is upset at me. The former Clinton spinmeister was on the Fox News Channel this morning on Fox & Friends, and Steve Doocy -- does the weather -- interviewed Lanny Davis and said, look, I know you're familiar with Hillary. She wants to be president. She's not come out and denounced this MoveOn.org ad. Do you think she should?

[begin audio clip]

DAVIS: Every single Democrat should say that MoveOn.org using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org who have a right under the First Amendment --

DOOCY: Sure.

DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of --

DOOCY: Right, but Lanny --

DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush's speech last night.

LIMBAUGH: So the conversation continues with Lanny Davis bringing me back into it.

[begin audio clip]

DAVIS: Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don't know why, but again, you're still focused on MoveOn.org rather than President Bush. Why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn't Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox & Friends for a second. Why MoveOn.org, which I denounce -- why are you not denouncing Rush Limbaugh questioning my patriotism for disagreeing on the Iraq war?

DOOCY: Lanny -- Lanny -- I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I'll look into it --

DAVIS: Why don't you -- why don't you do a study and invite me back, and we'll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left.

DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you're filibustering.

[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: I welcome it. I hope Fox does a program on me. I won't participate in it because I don't do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they're invested in defeat. I've said that it's just -- it's unacceptable, it's indecent the way they attack General Petraeus. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if this conclusion has come to anybody else out there, but during the Petraeus hearings -- and even in the postmortem -- you know, not one liberal, not one Democrat has asked what can we do to help you and the troops. While they were talking to General Petraeus, Lanny, there wasn't one Democrat in the House or Senate on either committee that asked the general what they could do to help him and the troops.

--A.J.W. & B.J.L.
"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003?f=h_top

Posted by: Hypocrite GOP | September 24, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

One more for sentimental reasons.

ZOUK IS A LYING PROPOGATING FASCIST.

Yeah. I feel better now.:)

Peace everyone. Remember what I told you. I helped to cut your chains. It's for you to walk out of the cave. Anyone left in the cave (due to willful ignorance of feear) deserves whatever the slave master wants to do to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Posted by: rufus | September 24, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Jane = actually my welfare check was taken away by bill clinton. Once I had to get a job I found that I could get 1 dollar from a local think tank for every Democrat lie I found. Corruption got me two dollars. As you can guess, I am very wealthy now with a virtually unstoppable stream of income. I paid more in AMT last year then most americans made.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

'Jane - you have serious anger issues, but you already knew that didn't you?'

Hey zouk, I don't hang on this blog all day long hating Democrats, so I don't think I'm the one with serious anger issues. I'm afraid that would be you. Tell me, do you get welfare checks, or what?

Posted by: Jane | September 24, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

'Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience.... Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems...(2) Affection for traditional life, as distinguished from the equilitarianism aims of most Leftist systems. (3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes.... Society longs for leadership....'

From the Conservative Mind, 1953. Considered the seminal bible of conservatism. The truth is, cons hate the idea of equality. They want a class system... and so they create one with tax cuts structured to maintain a permanent upper class. and by 'leadership' of course, they mean 'authoritarianism'

http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Kirkbc.htm

Posted by: fyi | September 24, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"so they represent a huge threat to the R's--and therefore musst be demonized. It's the R way."

Divide and conquer. That is the gop way. So much for "one nation, under god, indivisable".

The gop would say those are outdated principles.

Posted by: Lie spin and discredit | September 24, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"The R party really has nothing to run on but hatred and fear now" - moonbat alert!

that's why our arm of the party, who owns us, is printing things like Betray-us. Because we fear and we hate.

and that's why half the Democrat Senators voted that this is wrong. because the Rs are nuts???? but it seems in reality about half the Libs are nuts.

but why go on the facts when you can just say whatever you want on this blog.

Jane - you have serious anger issues, but you already knew that didn't you?

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"The Donald: Time for Bush to go into 'hiding'
Watch Trump sound off on President Bush in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Donald Trump has some advice for President Bush if he wants a Republican to win the White House: Hide.

The business mogul and vocal critic of the Bush administration told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday that he thinks the president is a "huge liability" for any Republican seeking the White House. Trump went on to say the best thing Bush can do for his party is to go into "hiding."

"I think President Bush has to go into a corner and hide if a Republican is going to get elected," he said. "There is no way he is an asset. He is a huge liability, and he is going to have to do a big, big hiding act if a Republican is going to win."

Once a Republican nominee is determined, Trump added, Bush "should just go into a corner and say 'Okay, that's it. I am finished. It's over.'"

Trump also reiterated his comments to CNN in March that Bush is "probably" the worst president in American history, saying, "We've gone from this tremendous power that was respected all over the world to somewhat of a laughing stock."

"And, all of the sudden, people are talking about China and India and other places.... Even from an economic standpoint, America's come down a long way," he added. "It's very, very sad."
"

www.crooksandliars.com

Posted by: That's your boy the #1 capitalist | September 24, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Bill O'Reilly Surprised At Civility Of Black Restaurant Patrons


Summary: Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'" Read more...


Because we know BillO's fans are so civilized and polite. You can listen to the audio clip of the segment here.
"


Change is at hand, says your boy Newt

"It must be hard to be Newt Gingrich nowadays. He's a smart guy, and lives and breathes politics. But he is now reaping all the partisan divisiveness that he's sown for the last 15 years and he is trying desperately to negotiate a new plan of action.

Download (572) | Play (617) Download (360) | Play (332) (h/t Heather)

Your job, Newt Gingrich: Slam Hillary (as the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate), but not too much, as she enlisted your help for her health care program. Tell Republicans to step away from Bush's failed policies, but not too much, because you know, you are on FOX. Say that we need our infrastructure upgraded, our educational system upgraded, but not too much, lest you sound like one of us DFH bloggers on the left. Fear not, fellow DFHs, Newt has a plan.

"

Remember what I told you. I'm gone. Peace and salutations.

Posted by: you racist fascists. | September 24, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

tO ANY AND ALL THAT WANT ME SILENCED. To everybody who thinks only the right should have a voice in this country. You have won a small battle. i am done blogging. Rejoice, everyone who is for the silencing of free speech, and is for fascism. The right is forcing Clinton on the nation. I had hope the people would not be for it. The right is forcing the democrats to run hillary. The democractic/republican party has made it's choice. It choose more of the same. We will get the same partisan bickering for four years. At that time we will revisit this again. The GOP/Democratic party bought themselves four more years of fascist rule. They choose fascism over democracy.

The political conversation is slighted so that only conservatives opinon is heard. And the left are now crazies and voice-less. You win. I'm going back under ground. I hope you are satisfied. silence the left. Just know everything you claim to be for, you are not. Free speech, democracy, republic, right AND left.

A new thrid party will burst on the scene in the next four years. It will be for the constitution. It will be a party of the people. Watch for it.

But you win. you have tilted the conversation so much to your side it is not possible for me to make any leway in this format. The government is so one sided, for republicans, they are forcing the opposition parties candidate. Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

You win. you silenced one socialist. Congradulations. Now continue destroying the country gop. Force your will down everyone's throughts. put a camera on every corner. Listen to every conversation. Just know you have used your time foolishly and selfishly.

One party rule is slavery. You may have won this small battle. You may tilt the agrument so much the other side no longer exists. But we still will exist. I will always hold the feeling I profressed here. Whether I am silenced or now i will hold these feelings. Just becasue I am no longer allowed TO SPEAK, doesn't mean that I don't hold these feelings in my head and close to my heart.

"If you can't win cheat". That is your motto. You have destroyed the media the justice depart our foreign relations, economices and you label me the bad guy. Much like Nizon had his share of public enemies (John Lennon, MLK). Were they the problem? Or where they pointing to the problem?

You win short term gop. Toast it up. Congradulate yourself. Real americans and real patriots should be crying at what has befallen us. Not laughin, not making a mockery of the public conversation.

so peace. One last time remember what I told you people. It's for real this time. The hope I had for this nation, given by the 06 elections, has been crushed by the republicans succesfully choosin gthe oppositions party for them. Sad day. goo dluck all. I wasn't lying to you. Watch for the book. Watch for the new party.

ALL POWER BACKK TO THE PEOPLE.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE.

Peace. You will hear from me again. Not on this blog though. You wasted the time we had. You used your time unwisely.

Posted by: RUFUS | September 24, 2007 11:02 AM

Posted by: ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE. remember me | September 24, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Colin, gay marriage is so over as an R issue. Half of the party is
gay and people are finally realizing that, so they have to have someone else to bash.

So for the next year, it's going to be the Swiftboating of MoveOn--because MoveOn has gotten very big, very powerful, and very good at fundraising--and it's real grassroots -- so they represent a huge threat to the R's--and therefore musst be demonized. It's the R way.

The R party really has nothing to run on but hatred and fear now, this ge ready for Moveon sliming all the time.

Posted by: Jane | September 24, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Ignore the message. Attack the messanger.

"UAW Workers Strike Against GM
By: Nicole Belle @ 1:18 PM - PDT Obviously, it's not your father's solid manufacturing career anymore either...

BBC:

United Auto Workers (UAW) union members at General Motors (GM) have walked out on strike after contract talks failed to reach an agreement.

It is the first time that UAW has held a nationwide strike during contract negotiations since 1976.

Workers began forming pickets outside five GM plants in the US as a deadline for a deal passed.

The carmaker wants staff to give up some of their expensive benefits such as pensions and health insurance.

In return the union wants assurances on job security from GM.

In a statement, GM said it was disappointed about the strike.

"The bargaining involves complex, difficult issues that affect the job security of our US work force and the long-term viability of the company," it said.

Here's the full text of the UAW statement. The BBC has some interesting links on the changing marketplace for GM. Autoblog will be watching the strike closely, as will Michigan Messenger.

Maybe I'm betraying my labor bias on this one, but it's hard for me to feel sympathetic to GM on this one. They're asking workers to give up pensions and health insurance and not even guarantee their job? Where's the incentive for the American workers? The substantial drop in market share that GM has experienced over the last 25 years can be directly pointed at shortsighted economic decisions that caught them flat-footed as the market and customer demand changed and left them behind. The same attitude can be carried over to much of the American manufacturing base as well.
"

Posted by: dO SOMETHING ABOUT THE MESSENGER'S gop. tHAT'S WHAT YOU DO | September 24, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

FreeRepublic - I didn't notice any actual R pols who are owned by this site. In fact, I bet if they printed something offensive, the Rs would condemn them. Unlike the Libs who condone any offensive act that might get them elected. but of course you Libs support free speech as long as it is free from fact and doesn't reflect badly on you.

but you have to do what you have to do. with your set of Lib issues, I can't blame you for your methods. what else have you? no one would vote for you if you came clean and ran on your record.

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

NYT stock prices:

Sept '07 - 19.81
Jul '04 - 38.29

that looks like a real success

If you're a Lib.

And 600K viewers of Olbermann is stomping O"reilly with 4 M viewers??and Air America, is that still on the air anywhere? and Laura Ingraham's book beats out an ex-president's book. Liberalism, like crime, doesn't pay. no one is buying.

Stop the facts, stop the facts. Uncle!

Posted by: trotsky | September 24, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh the "liberal media," which savaged Bill Clinton, is now obcessed with what the neckline on Hillary's blouse looks like, and which leapt to repeat all of the right's caricatures of both Gore and Kerry.

If anyone thinks that the NYT did this on purporse they're crazy and, to borrow KOZ's phrase, qualify as moonbats. The discrepency was SURE to be discovered, 80,000 means nothing, and anyone who actually cares about the democratic party would have viewed the ad for what it was --pathetic AND bad for Democrats.

Given that we're still at war, the dollar is unstable, the housing market is sagging, and real wage growth is stagnant, I'm personally really happy that this is what we're talking about. Really, it's THE single most important issue for the Country. Well, that and gay marriage...wait, that was'04. Never mind.

Posted by: Colin | September 24, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

'And the demand that "It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct"

That's a great idea. Right after GW Bush and Dick Cheney answer publicly on the record and under oath about the runup to the Iraq War, and AG Gonzo about the illegal firings and prosecutions of US Attonries. Let the games begin!

In fact, there's a whole raftful of stuff Henry Wawman wants administration officials to testify under oath about. So I think we should get rid of that backlog first, don't you?

Posted by: Sam | September 24, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

As are yours over at FreeRepublic, the Nazi site, kingofzouk. Always talking about how they can't wait for the civil war to begin so they can start shooting Democrats...

Posted by: Diane | September 24, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Diane - a direct post from Kos. i am surprised you didn't see it before. Your people are very colorful.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"It's called an "in-kind donation" and needs to be reported to the FEC. you know the place hillary fears to dwell."


well then get it over with and convict her so we can find a decent candidate. or are you saving it so rudy has a chance to win?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

It's called an "in-kind donation" and needs to be reported to the FEC. you know the place hillary fears to dwell.

She will not go against them. she is bought and paid for, just like they said.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

'Hey, WaPo, can we get equivalent coverage of the D side of the aisle? '

Yeah, CC, have you never met anyone of the D side? You certainly never quote them -- ever. Are you even trying to look bipartisan, or have you just given up?

Posted by: drindl | September 24, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

'I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...'

THIS is your idea of intelligent discourse, kingofzouk? how pathetic you are.

Posted by: Diane | September 24, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't suppose it matters that Moveon.org paid up the difference when this error came to light? Secondly, how are advertisement rates relevant to Congress?

Posted by: texasdem | September 24, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

This is a wonderful reminder of what the GOP was all about in the late '90's: abusing the law to accomplish purely political - and ultimately pointless - ends.

And the demand that "It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct" is laughable coming from the party of Bush's endless off-the-record, never-under-oath, closed-to-the-public demands regarding testimony from ANYONE in his Administration. Mr. Davis has no shame, another hallmark of the GOP in the late '90's.

Hey, WaPo, can we get equivalent coverage of the D side of the aisle? CC may not have anyone to report on after 2008 and I'd like to hear what D congresspeople think every once in a great while. Hope that's not too much to ask.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 24, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

'They are happy to assist in any way possible the cause(s) of the left as a dying liberal rag desperate to retain the tiny market share they now represent and hardly anyone cares to read anyway.'

proud2bstupid -- they gave the same rate to Rudy Guiliani. How does that fit in with your twisted world view?

Posted by: Diane | September 24, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

'The broader question is whether this is an isolated incident or whether we can expect more attempts by Republican candidates to use MoveOn to either strengthen their conservative bona fides or attack their Democratic opponents as liberals.'

Of course they will continue to attack and demagogue and swiftboat and lie and slime. What else do they have?

Posted by: Jane | September 24, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Does Davis realize what an idiot he is? Investigating ad rates from the NYT given to an "unacceptable" organization? I didn't know we were in China...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mpp | September 24, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Tom Davis has no ability to work on any issues? Amazing. Apparently the fact that the Democrats control Congress stops any Republicans from even thinking about how to solve problems. It doesn't prevent them from requesting pointless House hearings, however.

By the way, Proud, the New York Times is the #3 newspaper in the country. Its "tiny market share" eclipses everything but the USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, both national newspapers. But don't let the truth interfere with your knee-jerk media-bashing.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"It is actually the do nothing Democrats who are voting over and over on measures to end a war. how many times does it take for a NO to sink in?"

I think the Senate hasn't yet been able to vote on some of those bills. They keep succumbing to filibuster. Strange; it wasn't all that long ago that the Repubs complained about the 'party of no' holding things up time & time again. The shoe is now on the other foot, no?

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...

Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that's not all...

I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor -- locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can't help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.

Posted by: Kos | September 24, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it must be hard to live in a world where you believe the NYT is in cahoots with moveon and Hillary killed 12 people in the 90's. Keep it up, you're just alienating more and more people with your loony-bin conspiracy theories.

Tom Davis leads the Tinfoil brigade! Forget Iraq, forget Al Qaeda! What deflating economy? There's Moveon.org. Chaarrrrrrrrrge!

Posted by: Can I be a loony too? | September 24, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

You have to give Tom credit. He was never out in front when he was a committee chairman and had actual responsibility, but now you can't get him out of the camera's lens or shut him up.

"In a letter dated Sept. 24 and sent to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Davis said that the explanation offered for the pricing mixup by the New York Times public editor was unacceptable."

So what does Tom want the Congress to do regulate advertising in the news media?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

In case you Dim Dems forgot, tha majority party controls the agenda. tom Davis has no opportunity to "work on or pass" other issues.

It is actually the do nothing Democrats who are voting over and over on measures to end a war. how many times does it take for a NO to sink in?

Posted by: kingofzouk | September 24, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

CC - Did you actually write this with a straight face? "the fact that MoveOn.org was accidentally given a discounted ad rate"

Accidentally? bwaaaahhaaahaahhaaa. -It was no accident! They are happy to assist in any way possible the cause(s) of the left as a dying liberal rag desperate to retain the tiny market share they now represent and hardly anyone cares to read anyway. In light of this, I'm sure they are more than happy to get the extra dough from MoveOn after the sweetheart deal, er "accident", was made public.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | September 24, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"What better way for Davis to bolster his conservative credentials than leading the charge (or one of the charges) in Congress against MoveOn and the New York Times -- two leading bogeymen of the right?"

Maybe he could bolster his conservative credentials by working on conservative solutions to the nation's problems. There are plenty of issues out there; he could pick one or two, become an expert on them, and try to pass some bills to actually make peoples' lives better.

Oh, sorry, you said CONSERVATIVE credentials. My mistake. In that case, the best thing to do is attack liberals. Could he maybe work some references to Ted Kennedy in there? That would win him the election for sure.

Posted by: Blarg | September 24, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The longer the GOP diverts attention from the top issues in the country - those being Iraq & the economy - the more likely they are condemning themselves to landslide losses next year.

For instance, Rep Davis, by all accounts, is running for the Senate next year. Do 50.1% of Virginians really want him focusing on NYT ad rates, or might there, perhaps, be some more important issues he could be working on?

Posted by: bsimon | September 24, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company