September 19, 2007
Re: MoveOn.org is a gift from the campaign gods...
I would like to personally thank Lee over at Horse's Ass for so ably proving my original point on this topic. His frothy indignation over the fact MoveOn.org attacks against Rudy Giuliani are actually helping his candidacy is a delightful exhibition of all that is lovable and cute about the netroots.
His core point seems to be: "Earling is wrong because the American public isn't happy with the situation in Iraq." Thanks for the newsflash. Too bad I don't dispute that point about the American public's feelings and it has nothing to do with the post in question.
The reality of national public opinion doesn't for a minute change the fact that attacking Rudy Giuliani in a Republican primary by saying he didn't stand up to George W. Bush on Iraq isn't going to have the desired effect. Who the attack is coming from doesn't help either. MoveOn.org has about as much credibility with Republican primary voters as Pat Robertson does with their Democratic counterparts. Put a different way; imagine the Club for Growth running ads in the primary attacking a Democratic candidate for not standing up to organized labor on free trade. Same effect.
Such attacks from MoveOn.org's might - stress might - have some potential in the right swing states in the general election, depending on where things are at a year from now. But that's not exactly what MoveOn.org is trying to accomplish right now is it?
Posted by Eric Earling at September 19, 2007
07:39 PM | Email This
1. How do you know when a political attack is working? When the target feels a need to respond. Rudy tried to respond to MoveOn's ad and failed. Look, Giuliani is the Right's only hope ... and it is a sad one. Set aside Rudy's marriage to his cousin, the fact that he wanted his at-the-time wife to make room in the mayoral mansion for his mistress, his anti-gun stance caught on tape, his pro-abortion stance, that is own kids can't stand him, and what is left? A guy who, for years, failed to upgrade emergency responders radios so they could communicate and a guy who gave anti-terror experts the finger and placed his city's command and control center in a building terrorists had already attacked. Today, Rudy tried to respond to MoveOn's accusations and he only made himself appear all the more impotent. He had a chance to be part of the Iraq study group and prove himself capable of handling truly big matters and he tucked his tail and ran like a scared kid. I'm a Lefty, but I know politics and I know an easy politician to defeat when I see one ... beating Rudy would be like taking candy from a baby. I know you guys don't want to hear that, but it is true. Just as it is true the GOP won't rise again until you all purge the extremists among you. Look, the moment the Republicans made Schiavo their poster-child, I immediately thought, "This is it...the Republicans are about to be exposed for the extremists they are." And I was right. Trace back the beginning of Bush's decline and the start of the end for the GOP in 2006 and Schiavo made it all possible. My point .. I know politics and I know how easy it will be to defeat Rudy...all I'm saying is find a real Republican and a real candidate.
Eric is right. Moveon.org's attacks on Rudy, while ostensibly trying to influence republican voters away from him (hilarious!), is just silly.
Here's the deal: polls show that Rudy is the most strong R candidate against their queen, Hillary. They are trying to keep republicans (har har, I know it's funny that they do this, but what the heck, while they're trying this goofy thing, they're throwing away perfectly good money on nothing. In this case, that's a GOOD thing.) from nominating him so that she won't have to deal with that hurdle. A sort of pre-emptive strike, if you will.
That they are using arguments that are completely silly to republicans is really just plain fun for the rest of us to watch. Let them be silly; we'll just watch them waste their money and hope that all of their "attacks" are this inane. Frankly,the donors to moveon.org should be furious that their money is being so completely wasted on stuff as useless as this; but maybe they won't figure it out, either. bahahahaaaa
..and btw, here's who the american people REALLY aren't happy with---the democrat congress, who are undoubtedly giddy over their ELEVEN percent approval rating (well, maybe they're not giddy about that...)
11%. Not much to be proud of there, lefties?
More shilling for Rudy from Eric - big surprise.
I voted twice for an "electable Republican" who was a fake conservative and I'm not doing that again. At least W was born again. Rudy's lifestyle makes the Clintons look like the Reagans. As RINO material, he's head of the pack.
I'm inherently suspicious of Mormons, but I'll take Romney over Rudy any day. He at least seems clean. Hopefully, though, Huckabee can make a move. I don't know enough about Fred Thompson yet - too bad he skipped the debates so far.
It was a total gift... please please please put more fuel on their fire.
It's a little bit like the "you can't handle the truth" court room drama meltdown starring our favorite scientologist.
6. R - I'm a Romney supporter and have said so repeatedly at this blog. Just because I'm willing to call a spade a spade shouldn't be construed as "shilling" for or against any candidate.
Of course MoveOn.org is a gift to GOP candidates who want to talk about everything except the issues. It's so much easier to attack a group and smear them as 'liberals' than to talk about real issues, like say, our soldiers in Iraq and how to get them home. Just like you're doing now. Instead of talking about MoveOn.org, why don't you offer some ideas on 'winning' the war in Iraq? What is your definition of winning?
Having Rudy as a candidate would be a gift to the Democratic party. Then his pathetic record as mayor will come under scrutiny. Already, the firefighters union is running ads talking about how he failed to get the firefighters new radios that would actually work, a seemingly simple task. Except the contract for radios went to a company on a no-bid contract. So that's what he thinks of our first responders across the country.
And don't forget Rudy putting the Emergency Command center in New York in World Trade Center 7, right at the site of a known terrorist target, a site that would most likely be vulnerable due to its proximity to the Trade Center towers. A pretty idiotic move. It would be like Ron Sims putting the emergency response center for King County under the viaduct.
Please, let Rudy be the GOP nominee for President. Please.
8. What do the Pope and Giuliani Have in Common?
Well not much ... one served in the war of his time, that is the Pope served as a German soldier in WWII, while the other, Ruedi managed to dodge the draft because he was defending his nation as a law clerk!
BUR! But, today the roles have reversed. One is promoting a war and touting his patriotism while te other one won;t even meet with Secretary Rice to endorse her peace efforts.
Will wonders never cease?
9. Oh RB, you have such wonderful hindsight. Oh, that's sight of your behind. sorry.
Putting the command center where it was made pretty good sense. Guess where most of the antenae were for not only radio and tv but when you need a high point, none were higher.
The "Union" may be running ads but the people in the craft have about as much say in it as Castro's voters.
And since when does MoveOn talk about real issues? Calling a General names is a real issue? Going back to their founding days telling that rascally Ken Starr to leave our boy Bubba alone for lying under oath. Okay, that's a biggy.
So if you go tit for tat, those no-bid radios don't hold a candle to the travel office or "finding" those FBI files in the queens office. And I'll bet you never find Rudi making a killing on cattle futures.
So what issues you have in mind there Richard?
10. Oh and SJ, any of those hotshot frontrunning democrats have any military experience? Seems I remember Hillary's hubby sending a letter saying he "loathes the military".
I'm sure today the feeling is quite mutual.
11. Whether they know it or not, the Nutroots left really are the gift that keeps giving. I'm looking forward to more violence and irrational behavior from MoveOn, ANSWER, Code Pink, and all of the other Nutty Left groupies as we head in to Election 2008. For political theatre, it does not get any better.
A. Alexander @ 1: "How do you know when a political attack is working? When the target feels a need to respond."
Funny. Because John Kerry waited two weeks to respond to the swift boaters. He probably thought their attack wouldn't work. Too bad by the time he got around to talking about it, the race had already slipped through his fingers - gone.
This claptrap about pre-9/11 emergency planning is an extremely weak argument to the average voter. It's premise is basically "he should have known what was going to happen!" Well, he didn't. He'll admit that. No reasonable person would hold it against him, either.
Bottom line: if Democrats want to make sure the 2008 presidential race focuses solely on 9/11.... I think we can oblige. :)
@10 No bubbelah, Mr,. Clinton wrote a very pained letter about his opposition to the war. Read it if you can read. (guess you can)
As for the others ,, Hillary was too female and Barack too young for nay of the wars your gius dodged.
Dodd, Peace Core and National Guard
Biden, elected to US senate during Vietnam war.
Richardon .. in college during 'nam, not called after.
Eric, a great post.
Moveon.org is the biggest joke in the country, and they are tied hook line and sinker to Hillary Clinton. She loves em!
I am beginning to believe Michael Moore is her mentor:} Can you imagine those two together..Mr. and Mrs. YUK. She is her own worst enemy.
Rudy is a fighter, and it's great to have him showing run away leadership in this fight. He is not timid in this fight, and he is not sitting down for a second in this battle.
He daily shows he is willing to go up against this witch's socialist tax happy policies, and come out the winner.
I for one cannot believe she came out offering her 1990's Healthcare program all watered down. Her Choices program demands that everyone pay and everyone belong to her healthcare plan. Not any choices apparent there!
She came out quite a long long ways from a Free healthcare for all promise. It's how she could keep all those BS promises to a measley 100 billion dollar pricetag and she knows damn well it is a lie. Try Gazillions of dollars Hillary dear!
It's warmed over Hillary, plain and simple. The Dems might go Ga Ga over her, but one hell of alot of Americans are going to Hang Mr. Yuk stickers and Sorry Charlie all over her campaign trail.
Go Get em Rudy!
Rudy just pushed the center line at least 20 yards into the enemy's territory.
He linked Moveon.org, Illery and John Edwards with the anti-Everything coalition.
I think a fighting LaGuardia type guy like Rudy is exactly what the public wants. I hope he keeps it up, and doesn't settle for the quiet spoken wonk stuff.
He can be a man of all the People.
Eric - A Giuliani nomination would be a wet dream for Democrats. If your point is that Giuliani comes out smelling roses with Republican primary voters due to this kerfuffle then MoveOn has done us a great service - not that anyone in the Republican crowd is going to have much of a chance come Nov 2008 anyway.
Meanwhile, if you think taking on MoveOn is a show of feistiness that only benefits Giuliani then you have a blind spot to not recognize that to many liberals it is MoveOn that has demonstrated a willingness to confront destructive conservatism head on and directly. The dog and pony show now over and we're back to denying reality all over again for another 6 to 9 months when we can do it all again.
Geez! You guys don't get it, do you? MoveOn isn't attacking Rudy to deter GOPers from voting for him...first, they're throwing a brush-back pitch. He attacked MoveOn, MoveOn hit back...second, MoveOn is "upping" Rudy's negs for the general election. They're making independent voters take another look at the phony 9/11 "hero" and independents won't like what they learn about Rudy ... he already has a strike against him, he's Republican and Independents are RUNNING from Repubs.
Here's big picture stuff though re this entire silly thing. The BIG PICTURE thing Republicans don't get ... nobody, except for Rush L. listeners and FOX News viewers, care what MoveOn did or didn't say about Petraeus. The Republican obsession with this non-issue, while Iraq falls apart; bin Laden thumbs his nose at Bush; millions lose homes to foreclosures; milk costs $4/gal; oil reaches record prices AGAIN; 9 million kids and 48 million adults without health insurance ... compared to ALL that, how many families or people care what MoveOn said about some guy 54% of the people expected to mislead Congress regarding Iraq's status?
Wow! This is like thinking Schiavo was going to be a big winner for the GOP, or that Republicans wouldn't lose either House in 2006, or that Iraq is still a BIG winner for Republicans. The Republican Party is so out of touch, it isn't funny.
Hey, rip on me and MoveOn all you want ... we're not the problem with the GOP or with Rudy or with Petraeus's lack of credibility. Until Republicans can start to look inward in an honest fashion ... it is only going to get worse.
Look...figure this out: There is NO GOOD TIME OR SITUATION in which a Republican mentioning Iraq or supporting Iraq or breathing Iraq is going to be a positive. Above all else ... tell your president to stop talking about a war that the people despise him for starting. Every time he opens his mouth, you can take away another Republican House seat...and a senate seat every three times he mentions Iraq.
Anyway ...sorry for using up so much of your Oxygen. I don't agree with much written here, but I respect your right to be wrong:-)
18. Your party is running Hillary, I likewise respect your right to be wrong.
I would love to see a Romney vs Obama matchup, be a real change for the country. Here in Reality Land, it's going to be Giuliani vs Clinton. They're both savvy politicians with botched pasts and uncertain futures.
the democrat congress, who are undoubtedly giddy over their ELEVEN percent approval rating
Hehe, like the GOP controlled one did any better. The GOP has to deal with all the gay sex that seems to be infiltrating it's upper ranks. It seems like every few months a new GOP gay sex scandal arises. You can only put your hand in the cookie jar so many times before you caught.
and .. like all the bushies except Condi amd Rummi, Ruedi was a chickenhawk in 'nam.
21. Dude. Who cares what Lee thinks? If you want to score some sweet bud then he's your man. Other than that give him a pile of sand and a hammer. He'll figure out the rest.
Who is Lee?
Notice how the lefties are changing the discussion on the MoveOn ad. Instead of an indictment on their decency by attacking a career soldier (oh yes, I forgot, we support the troops), they are morphing the MoveOn ad into an indictment against Rudy.
I love what Rudy is doing. He is the first male to attack Clinton and he is ripping into the lefts "gotchas" against him about a year too early. Ergo, by next year, it won't be effective. I love it.
I got a question for the new lefties: why are you so hyper about who the Republicans nominate? You not-so-mild protests against Rudy indicates you all are afraid of him. I love it.
I love what Ruethi is doing as well, except...don't you tink it is odd that he is running in two parti9es at the same time?
What could he be thinking?
I think this may be illegal:
A Alexander and RBoronski, I see now where the talking points came from. They were so closely stated that I knew they had to come from somewhere.
Her Royal C (HRC) won't attack Giuliani's private life herself (she is above that) so she uses Vilascis, the former governator. Guys, it won't work if Rudy gets the nod; it may work in the primaries as these things concern Rs, but having the pot call the teakettle black. My word.
Hey, GS ... you are right about Hillary. I wouldn't vote for that duplicitous fool for all the money in the world. If Dems elect her, SHE will be the GOP's best hope of winning the Presidency in 2008. Granted, not much of a hope, but some hope.
Hillary is the one candidate that might be able to get the Christian Qaeda motivated to vote ... on the other hand, she'd be smart enough to run commercials emphasizing Rudy's serial marriages, wife-cheating, cocaine selling friends, trying to convince his wife to let his girlfriend move in with them etc. and that would neutralize the Osama bin Dobson vote, don't you think?
But yeah, the Dems are taking a huge risk by electing Hillary!
The GOP has to deal with all the gay sex that seems to be infiltrating it's upper ranks.
Well Cato as always, someone has to tell you the truth. Does Gary Studds (congressman from Mass) bring anything to memory? Got caught having SEX with a 17 yr old page and was censured. Yet you dems said zip and reelected him.
Now cato who on the rep side was ever caught having gay sex???? and what party kicked them out?
27. "More shilling for Rudy from Eric - big surprise."
Eric shills for Romney not Rudy. He he.
Seattle Jew again perpetuates the liberal meme of "You aren't allowed to support the war unless you went to one."
It's interesting to note that the people who have been to Iraq in THIS war do support it. Studies show that and Re-enlistment is 130% of goal right now. I was listening to KIRO this AM and there was a story about a doctor that treats wounded soldiers and he said he is always amazed that the wounded always ask how fast they can get back to their units.
But... Just to show how silly the argument is, lets try this with a few liberal ideas.
"You can't support abortion unless you've been aborted."
"You can't vote to raise federal taxes unless you actually pay federal taxes." (Note: A large percentage of American's don't.)
For the record, there is a very large percentage of American voters that grew up between big wars. I actually have a brother than tried to sign up during Iraq war I and was told by the recruiter that it would be over before he was out of boot camp. (And he was right.) Does this mean we're not allowed to have an opinion?
29. Someone throw Daniel K a doggie bone. He managed to use the talking point phrase "dog and pony show" in a sentence.
If you read my posts or vitied my blog you wold know that I do not say that only those who have been to war can make decisions. There is, however, a huge difference between folks who took Vietnam seriously enough to protest OR serve and those who failed to show up for duty like Mr. Bush. He was a coward.
BTW there are many ways one can serve their country. Chris Dodd was in the peace corps before he served in the Nat. Guard. Obama and HRC both worked as community organizers. Amongst the Reoub leasers AFIK the closest one can come to service is the Romney family, including Dad. Moromon missionary work but 0/8 males chose to serve in any other way.
The sole exception of course is John McCain and, like John Kerry, this John too was swiftboated by the Rove machine.
Honestly, I am anything but thing about R vs L. However, there is a consistency of surrealism and self serving behavior on the rad right that scares me ..and thankfully now most of the country.
Let me try this on you ...
who amongst the Republican leadership do you think is admirable for their service to the country?
At a very quick glance I can come up with Obama. Dodd, Webb, Richardson, Max Cleland, Wes Clark, John Kerry, Harold Ford, William Grey ....
Interestingly of this list, several have been demeaned by the Rove machine : Ford, Kerry, Cleland, Webb
now do the same quick exercise on the right, ther area few, but they are older and rare:
GHW Bush, Bob Dole, Rumsfeld, Powell ? ... it gets hard, doesn't it?
to make matters worse, there a number who committed treason (or bordered on that) or lied about their service:
O'Reilly, North, Libby, Rove, GW Bush,
There is something very wrong in the GOP today.
Look, I want the Repubs to have a real, patriotic party. I admired Ike, Greenspan, Kissinger. There is a real need for a respectable, even true heroic conservative party.
SeattleJew (#13), PC said "any of those hotshot frontrunning democrats have any military experience?". In your answer, you change the question to "have any of the Dem candidates fought in a war--obviously not the same thing." Any of these candidates could have joined the military even if there was not a war on.
3 of my 4 older brothers were in the military, but only two of them were in Vietnam--and only one of the two was there while in the military (my Marine brother was there while in the Marines, but my Airforce brother was stationed in Thailand and went to Vietnam after he got out, to work for a civilian contractor in Vietnam).
I love that these Moveon supporters (A. Alexander, Richard Borkowski and, on another thread Blathering Michael) are so out of touch. They think that they can replay the 1960's. Well let me tell you something--the intensity of the disenchantment with the Iraq War is NOTHING like Vietnam. Why? Well, first of all, there is no draft, so those that are fighting it, as well as their families, tend to believe in what they are doing. Second, again, since there is no draft, there are no students that are afraid of being drafted and having to be in a war. Third, the casualties in Iraq, while devastating to the families that they occur in, are much, much lower than in Vietnam.
There is a small segment of the population (you are part of it) who adamently disagree with the Iraq War, but the rest of the segment who disagrees with it really just wants us to win it and get it over with. You are misreading the 2006 election--it was NOT about the Iraq War, it was about the Republican Congress acting like Democrats in spending and it was about multiple scandals (Foley, anyone?). It is obvious that this is the case, or the Democrats would not have a problem getting the votes they need to change the direction in Iraq or to pull out troops.
You need to get out of your Seattle Starbucks echo chambers and see what people in the rest of the country really think. They are NOT against the military--the military has much, much higher ratings than ANYONE in congress or either party, and they don't appreciate a left-wing group dumping on our commanding general who has put himself in harms way to serve our country. Who has Moveon served other than you left wing whiners?
Interesting point about the dems though is how many of them are eager to stab the military in the back.
John Kerry, hero of Vietnamese for instance. (And yes, the Viet Cong celebrated him as so.)
Bill Clinton, who accepted cash so that his non-serving buddies could be buried in military cemetaries. He of "I loath the military."
John Murtha, who has openly accused our military men of being rapists and killers.
I could go on, but why bother. It's obvious to anyone that reads the news that the democrats have been rooting for the U.S. to lose this war for years now. Look at the panic they went thru when the surge started working. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
republicans will need help from all the gods in 2008 after having screwed the budget, foreign policy, expanding the size of the govt, pushing through irresponsible tax cuts and generally abandoning republican principles for 6 years when they monopolized federal govt.
eric, focusing on moveon.org instead of examining the health of your party is reminiscent of what the dems did throughout the 80s.
34. Funny how Lee can't win a debate with facts over here but then "cuts and runs" over to horsesass to post his side of the story and to have his little minions lavish praise for his debating skills.
It's sad that so many of the people that Lee mentions that insist they know the truth have never made the trip to Iraq to learn the truth. When you compare the words of Democrats that have made the trip that say success is being made to those that haven't left the safe confines of their parents basements one has to wonder about democrat voters.
SJ @ 30:
I'm not a big supporter of Bush, but fair is fair. Bush is a politician and all politicians stretch the truth. However, there have been many, many more lies told ABOUT Bush than have ever been told BY Bush. Your statement about him being a coward for avoiding military service is one of the former. This lie is based on one general saying in an interview more than thirty years after the fact that he couldn't recall seeing Bush on his base during a certain time period. All credible evidence supports that Bush did indeed fulfill his military obligation at the time. In fact, memos had to be faked by CBS to show that Bush had shirked his duty since no actual evidence existed.
Bush flew fighter jets in the TANG. Have you ever met a fighter pilot? I thought not. I have met several. There are two things you can never, ever call a fighter pilot. One is stupid and the other is cowardly. These guys are the best of the best. Stupid people are not allowed anywhere on the same field as one of those machines. Fighter pilots don't blow body parts off from playing with live hand grenades while drunk (Cleland). They don't cut and run every time an engine backfires thinking they might be under fire (Kerry). They don't insist on their own personal bodyguard while writing for a military newspaper fifty miles away from any actual combat (Gore). They take far more risk every day they do their job than most service people whether they ever see actual combat or not.
In fact, Bush volunteered twice for Viet Nam but was turned down because other pilots had more flight time. Nevertheless, he still served in his country's defense. Remember the cold war? Even today, we don't send all of our fighters into combat because they are needed for defense here.
Your comment was made out of blind ignorance and you should be ashamed.
36. Does Gary Studds (congressman from Mass) bring anything to memory? Got caught having SEX with a 17 yr old page and was censured.
True, and Ted Kennedy driving the the car which led to a woman drowning. He still got elected. Dem's are not stereotyped as having the best morals. Meanwhile the GOP wears it's religion on it's sleeve, they purposely portray themselves as the voice of the 'moral majority'. You can't expect the voters not to see the hypocrisy happening in Congress.
It's one thing to say you stand for smaller govt, better morals, and less taxes. It's another thing when the voters elect you to do this task and they find out you do just the opposite when you get in.
Interesting (yet predictable) to see that Patty Murray voted AGAINST a measure to condemn MoveOn.org's recent NYT ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus.
Maria Cantwell didn't vote, along with two other Dems - Biden and Obama, signaling that they are perhaps afraid to go against the extreme left of their party.
Regardless, the measure passed overwhelmingly which gives me hope that the majority of the country has capable leadership, even though our state is left with what can only be considered a kook and a coward.
Cato at #36 says, "Meanwhile the GOP wears it's religion on it's sleeve, they purposely portray themselves as the voice of the 'moral majority'."
Or would it be more accurate to say that is the way Democrats and the Mainstream Media portray the GOP?
And don't forget that my ticket for a return ticket to the Oral Office voted against the Senate resolution supporting General Petraeus. MoveOn owns her too!
Hill, what a gal!
40. Cato: True, there are slimes in both parties. One of the major differences, though, is that the Republicans tend to get rid of them when it goes public. That's not to say it's commendable that they wait till it's public, but at least it's better than giving them standing ovations for their less than sterling behavior, and re-electing them time and again, i.e. Studds, Kennedy, even the famous Marion Barry [sp]. I think they all become corrupted by power and opportunity, believe they are invincible and above the law, and ultimately need to experience the joys of term limits. They should not have the benefits they enjoy, in the form of pay and pension, above-average health care plans, and all their other perks. The job should be an opportunity for them to do public service, not a career move. They would all whine that they need several years to learn the ropes in the Senate or the House, but the truth of the matter is, it's the support staff who know the ropes and keep things moving, so no big deal. Let the support staff stay, allocated according to party affiliation, rather than each newly elected official bringing a whole new crew. I think term limits would go a long ways toward cleaning up the corrupted mess we are now experiencing.
41. Brilliant, katomar. Direct from the mouth of the master; I am humbled.
42. Or would it be more accurate to say that is the way Democrats and the Mainstream Media portray the GOP?
I've never seen Rev. Ken Hutcherson, Ralph Reed, or Pat Robertson other fine openly Christian folks openly campaigning for Democrats. Maybe it's that same sort of portrayal where people associate MoveOn.org with the Dem's. I've never seen them come out endorsing a Republican candidate. =)
Republicans tend to get rid of them when it goes public.
Or actively endorse them to run for Senate when they break their pledge to only serve for three terms in the US House and they actually serve five. I mean what sort of example would that set?
I think term limits would go a long ways toward cleaning up the corrupted mess we are now experiencing.
Or create a big mess as neophyte lawmakers learn to work the in and outs of the system.
The vote regarding MoveOn.org ranks right down there with the GOP's vote to rename French Fries to Freedom Fries. Namely, a supreme waste of time on an issue that has nothing to do with anything in terms of addressing constituent issues. You call this vote leadership? This vote does nothing for health care, port security, immigration issues, voting issues, etc, etc.
It was a symbolic, feel good vote for a Congress that is unable to do anything of value anymore.
Bush was quick to condemn MoveOn.org as well. However, Eli Pariser came back quickly with:
"What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war."
I would hardly call a statement like that something fringe or extremist. His comments reflect the majority opinion of the American public as well as the Iraqi public who want the US military out of Iraq.
Borkowski: 'Eli Pariser came back quickly with:
"What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war."'
Yes, a particularly silly come back. The president has "developed" and communicated the "exit strategy" any number of times, its just that you people on the left would rather have us lose by leaving the field of battle--oh yeah, that's some exit strategy Mr. Pariser.
The "ins and outs of the system" exist BECAUSE of those who need to be cleaned out. It's called job security...."I should be re-elected because I can navigate the maze of politics and get things done for our great state (gag)!"
Of course the prez said something to condemn them....they were wrong. Hell, you are probably pissed because he hasn't commented on Metro's bus fire yet....how insensitive of him.
Jesus, you two...wake up.
46. Borkowski: "His comments reflect the majority opinion of the American public". You political extremists always think you represent "the majority of the American public". That statement is BS. The polls do not show that the public agrees with you or is so whacko as to start denigrating our troops as Moveon did. Keep depending on your polls to make you feel better, but for any poll to be useful, you have to ask the right questions. Just asking if people "support" or "don't support" the war is NOT the right question.
1. You are wrong. I have known real fighter pilots .. the kind that served in vitanm by flying off of carriers. I agree they are great guys.
2. You are right. I agree GWB is an enigma .. he does nto seem bright enough t fly a jet fighter. I must admit this is surprising but perhaps ther is little relationship between those skills and running a business or a country?
3. You are wrong. Bush's record is pretty well documented. He dis train in Alabama the never shoed up for duty in Texas. He was not any more less legally AWOL than a lot of other rich kids of his era who pulled the same shit.
As for any evidence that he volunteered for 'nam, and was turned down?? I call horse turds on that. If it were true we would have read about that along time ago, If you have evidence ... email me r leave a message at SJ. I will be happy to buy ypu a beer if you can prove this.
4. Do me a favor, look up Giuliani's statements about what he would have done if called to 'nam.
Finaly, why shold I be respectful to man who has done so little to earn my respect? I had friends die (in fighter planes) in 'nam while he was sitting in a bar. I have seen him take MY country form a role of leading the world to a postion of disdain.
And for this?
Your memory is short. The USA was ONCE a powerful force, until the Demo's took control.
49. Cati: You obviously speed read without comprehending, or you just cherry-pick parts which you can distort. New senators and congressmen do not need to know the ins and outs of the legislative system. The support staff already serving have much greater knowledge and experience in working the nuts and bolts, and should be left to it so that elected representatives can concentrate on goals. Do you think these legislators actually read legislation? No, their staff does and makes recommendations. Their staff write legislation. They do not. I often wonder just what it is they actually do, besides meet with lobbyists and spend precious time preening and posturing for the cameras from election to election rather than working for us. WE are their employer, not the reverse. As for serving five terms when they promised three, well, not one of them, Dem or Repub, will ever limit their terms until they are forced to. We've let it become the gravy train, and made them the conductors.
"You are right. I agree GWB is an enigma .. he does nto seem bright enough t fly a jet fighter."
And you don't seem bright enough to write a coherent sentence. So where's the beef?
51. Vitreol from Moveon.org is so repugnant it makes Bush look clearly like the lesser of two evils. Neither are right, but one is more wrong than the other. Moveon has established themselves as the enemy within. They, the ACLU and LaRaza have teamed up to bolster Al Qaeda in America.
Well said KS. One of Lee's core arguments is that all of us in the VRWC, think Bush is a great president, and that the Iraq war has been flawless. The reality of course is that there is an alternative whereby the US public, and even those of us on the right, are unhappy with Iraq, but still realize that despite Bush's mistakes, we can't ignore Fanatical Islam.
And compounding the mistakes in Iraq with bigger mistakes of a Soviet like Superpower retreat in response to terrorists, isn't going to make the preachers of hatred in the Islamic world renounced their Fatwas and get along with the modern world. It's going to embolden them, just as it did Bin Laden.
We do need better leadership, but we don't need Progressive pacifism and cut and run leadership. And we definitely don't need emotional advertisements from Marxist fanatics accusing everyone from the President, to the Generals and down to the Haditha Marines of being liars and passing judgment before any facts have even been presented.
Boronski, you moron. Don't ever call the decorated soldier of 30 years a stooge or traitor (betray). This is what the furor is about.
Bash me or bash Bush but don't bash our military without justification and don't single out our best for your ridicule. Understand? Or is it Comprendo?
so when it was convenient to demean kerry's service, that was okay, but moveon's demeaning of petraeus' service is not.
right. got it. you wingers are crystal clear in your logic.
55. Dinesh, Kerry was a political figure running for political office (in fact the highest political office). General Patraeus was not. Do you get it now?
56. Dinesh: Why has Kerry, to this day, refused to release his military records? Maybe because they would prove the Swift Boat charges. It would have been a hugely easy fix to release the records, but he has refused. Why?
SJ @ 47:
I never said you should respect him. If he hasn't earned your respect, he shouldn't get it. I just said you should stop lying about his military record.
"As for any evidence that he volunteered for 'nam, and was turned down?? I call horse turds on that. If it were true we would have read about that along time ago, If you have evidence ... email me r leave a message at SJ. I will be happy to buy ypu a beer if you can prove this."
I'll concede the point although I have seen it in numerous sources. I'm sure you're a real fine feller to sit and have a beer with, but frankly, it's not enough incentive for me to spend the time, even though I believe my statement to be correct. However, no one joins the Guard during a time of war without understanding that they run the risk of being called up.
If Bush wanted to avoid combat for sure, he could have done what Clinton did: dodge the draft, move to a foreign country and participate in anti-American demonstrations for a few years while some congressman back home fixed things for him. Heck, what with Clinton having barely moved out of the trailer park and Bush's daddy already being a congressman, this would have been much easier for Bush than it was for Clinton.
Or he could have done what Gore did. Join the army, get a cushy non-combat job and have his daddy provide him with his own personal security staff to protect his sorry little ass.
Bush did none of these. For you to call him a coward is just another symptom of your severe case of BDS.
"Bush's record is pretty well documented. He dis train in Alabama the never shoed up for duty in Texas."
My turn to call horse poopy. If this is so well documented, how come CBS (with all of the research capacity at their disposal) had to resort to their "fake but accurate" memos.
"I have seen him take MY country form a role of leading the world to a postion of disdain."
Now you're just being silly. If you argue that the US doesn't enjoy the status it did just after WW2, I would agree, but the blame is shared by every president going back to Kennedy (with the possible exception of Ford who wasn't in office long enough to do much serious damage). If you think the US was much more beloved in the world seven years ago than it is today, well you just weren't paying attention.