So, I'm really dying to write a response to Lee's response to my response to his response to my original post. Really, I am.
Or maybe I'll just point out that in today's Senate vote only 25 of 50 Democrats voted in support of MoveOn.org's ad that started this whole kerfluffle kerfuffle. 22 of the 50, plus Joe Lieberman, voted with Republicans to condemn it.
I guess almost half of the Senate Democratic caucus must also be out of touch with the will of the people...or at least that's the netroots theory.
Friday AM UPDATE: And in a further testament to the fact MoveOn.org's ad made the debate about them rather than Iraq policy, the first interview of the Today Show this morning is Matt Lauer talking to Eli Parker Pariser from MoveOn.org and talk show host Laura Ingraham. They aren't exactly discussing the finer points of the surge policy or expectations for future troop levels. This over a week after Gen. Petraeus's actual testimony. Smooth.
My gosh, the resolution did not even say that the "yea" votes agreed with the general, just that our troups and their commander deserve support and to condemn personal attacks. Here is what the words of the resolution actually were:
"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."
Notice that all of the "leaders" and pretenders to the presidency on the D side either voted against the resolution or abstained.
Clinton...........Nay
Dodd..............Nay
Durbin............Nay
Kennedy...........Nay
Kerry.............Nay
Reid..............Nay
Biden.............No Vote
Obama.............No Vote
Heck, even Chuck Hagel, a soon to be ex-Republican Senator from Nebraska that has been out-spoken against the war voted Yea. These weenie D's are too afraid of Moveon to even condemn the attack.
Posted by: Bill H on September 21, 2007 04:48 AMWhy - probably because are in a financial bed with the supporters of MoveOn.Org. Much Hilliary was in bed with Hsu
Posted by: me on September 21, 2007 06:53 AMMy word, I just can't get over the ad or the nutroots responses. This isn't about the war or Bush; this was about an exemplary human being who has spent 30 some years in the military defending our right to bash Bush. I just don't get it, I guess.
I think as we get closer to the election (i.e. when nominees move to the center of the spectrum and don't have to cater to the fringes), we will see just how isolated this leftist fringe is. What started out like a good idea has morphed into a nightmare.
Posted by: swatter on September 21, 2007 07:08 AMYou're exactly right. They all (1) want Moveon's money; and (2) are afraid of being taken to the woodshed by these same "supporters" a la Joe Liebermann. I disagree with a lot of Liebermann's positions, but at least he has the cojones to stand up to the Moveon types. Had I lived in CT last year, I would have voted for him just for that.
Posted by: Bill H on September 21, 2007 07:09 AMIf you remember they were all clamorring for status updates that they could use to gauge their direction. So Bush set a timeline for Patreus to report. Then when things were looking a bit up the dems started to rush to condem the war even more vociferously and get their own report earlier than Patreus'. Now that they've heard what they didn't want to hear they attack the man and the message because they've been entirely marginalized (as their 11% approval rating shows).
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on September 21, 2007 08:45 AMBut at least they're weren't talking about O.J. So hey, that's a positive right there!
Posted by: Daniel K on September 21, 2007 09:54 PM