Comments on: Bill Clinton On MoveOn Ad Controversy

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:16:10 +0000

I thought the ad was stupid strategically, but hadn't actually read it though I'd seen what the "headline" said. As a reminder to those who've apparently forgotten it didn't say "General Petraus is really General Betray Us.". It said "General Petraus or General Betray Us?". But since the right has been screaming about it so much I thought I'd take another look. So I went to the one site that I knew still had it up based on what I'd read. MoveOn.org. Here is what they have up about it now if anyone is actually capable of reading it halfway objectively.

By: krit

krit — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:51:20 +0000

BTW, what hasn’t been mentioned in all of the hoopla is the cover story in this months American Conservative- entitled “Sycophant Savior”, which blasts Petraeus from the other side- accusing him of betraying the troops under his command because he hasn’t asked to double or triple their numbers in Iraq. Makes interesting reading.

Resolution anyone??? LMAO!

By: hanginjohnny

hanginjohnny — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:49:51 +0000

Even tho the term “Betrayus” was coined by Golden-Arched conservative Rush Limballs, err Limbaugh in January 07.

By: krit

krit — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:43:42 +0000

The Max Clelland ads made me sick- putting him in ads with OSB because he opposed some parts of the Patriot Act. Meanwhile, he lost both his legs in service to his country in Vietnam. That really hardened me against the Republican party. Though Move-on was also wrong in its attack, all of the outrage just seems hypocritical to me now.

By: domajot

domajot — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:15:52 +0000

McCain’s treatment says it all.
The way he was destroyed by members of his own party marked the advent of a new era in politicking by smear ads.
You’d have to go back to the days of Hamilton to find an equal caliber of dirty play.

For me, it was McCain’s ‘illegitimate’ daughter that first turned my stomach, not even the Swifboaters.
But MCCain was defeated, and dirty poloitcs won.

That was the beginning.
Then there were years of ‘cut and run’, ;betray the troops’ all sprinkled with generous doses of that old standby ‘unAmrecan”.. Funny how evertything not Republican is always unametican.
Even then, I never condoned Democratic excess.
I hated the MoveOn ad.

Now I’ve had enough.
If the Republicans don’t like the tone, stop it.
Show us the way. Show us the ‘values’ way to conduct politics. Lead by example.
‘Turn the other cheek’ might even apply for those who read the Bible seriously.

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:15:25 +0000

President Bush withdrew the nomination of Sam Fox in recognition of his role in the Swift Boat controversy, then made him ambassardor to Belgium anyway, through a recess appointment.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:14:57 +0000

Davebo: I don’t disagree, and that case can probably be made for a lot of 527s- which is why they’re such a bad idea. All we’ve done is create a layer of opacity instead of transparency in funding.

By: Davebo

Davebo — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:10:13 +0000

And of course, he sought to distance himself from the 527 that produced the ads while the Dems tried to make the case that there were strong ties there.

Well, the case is pretty impossible to miss (the strong ties between George W. Bush and Bob Perry) especially if one has lived in Texas.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:37:12 +0000

I don’t think there should have been a resolution to condemn the Petraeus ad either. In both (all) cases, election laws should be considered and if they weren’t broken, then it’s an issue of whether or not someone should have said something, not whether or not they should be allowed to say it. Congress shouldn’t put it’s nose into the matters- unless they think the laws should be changed which regulate election finance and speech.

By: krit

krit — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:32:50 +0000

Bush nominated a donor who gave 50,000 to the 527 that produced the Swift Boat ads. When the nomination failed to make it out of committee the name was withdrawn., Later the donor– don’t remember the first name but the last name is Fox was given a recess appointment to the post.

If Bush genuinely condemned the ads- why would he have chosen that particular donor? To further rub salt in the wound, Kerry was on the committee that oversaw the nomination.

Why no resolution to condemn the Swift Boat ads?

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:21:49 +0000

Kim,
The way I remember it, McCain denounced the Swiftboat ads and called on Bush to do so. He issued a weaker form, by saying that he would not impugn Kerry’s military service. And of course, he sought to distance himself from the 527 that produced the ads while the Dems tried to make the case that there were strong ties there. My take on it is that it was probably somewhere in the middle, as usually is the case (and that’s why 527’s are a bad, bad idea- giving leeway for attack ads for which the candidate can have plausible deniability- even if it’s only plausible to the voters on his own side of the aisle).

I don’t know who you’re referring to about the ambassadorship, so I must have missed something.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:18:54 +0000

No, Doma, but nice try.

I believe much of the outrage on both sides is real, not just mine. How about you, do you believe the same? Or is it real outrage when the Swiftboaters attack Kerry and faux when MoveOn attacks Petraeus?

And is it a distraction when the GOP shows outrage, but real and important when the Dems do? And isn’t the stirring up of outrage itself a tactic to distract?

What I’m pointing out is that we’re all being selective (and I can see where I have been guilty of this myself). It’s always much harder to see a smear as a negative tool of partisanship when your side does it, but it’s easy to see when the other side does. And it’s easy to see that when the opposing side issues a weak condemnation that is really being used more as an opportunity for more of the same smearing and attacking (now attacking the outrage over the outrageous attack), that you aren’t going to be satisfied with that as a true condemnation of the tactic as a principled stand.

By: krit

krit — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:08:01 +0000

CS- I don’t recall many Republicans condemning the Swift Boat ads or the ads showing Clelland with OSB. Many of the RNC’s ads from the last election intimated that voting for the Democratic party was equivalent to leaving the country open to another attack by al queda- Rick Santorum’s for example.

Where were the objections from Republicans when the major funder of the swift boat ads was nominated by Bush for an ambassadorship?

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:53:28 +0000

Bait and switch!!

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:40:51 +0000

Where exactly did Clinton condemn MoveOn, Kim? His quick mention of having a mixed reaction to it, before he moved on to his own attack over the ‘feigned outrage’?

So, you would have been satisfied if a Republican had condemned the Swift Boat ads that way (which in fact many of them did?)

By: domajot

domajot — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:40:08 +0000

“Itâ€™s time to stop the madness. Instead of focusing on one side or the other or which is worse, weâ€™ve got to start holding both sides accountable. ”

Great outrage. It’s not faux outrage. It’s real, because it’s mine and it’s justified.

The other side just has a bunch of meanies, and they deserve everything they get.

We should stop. Somebody else should go first.

Did I get thet right?.

By: spanielboy

spanielboy — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:35:54 +0000

To have the Senate ‘vote’ on showing their disgust for a newspaper article is a bit too far – in fact, it went too far. But former POTUS Clinton does highlight how relativistic the GOP is right now – and the Dems can be just as bad but as of this moment the egg is on the GOP. I wonder what the sycophants and toadies will do with the latest article written by Dr. Bacevich?

By: krit

krit — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:31:55 +0000

Clinton got it right here. Political leaders should be condemning the practice of personal attack which has taken root on both sides, and which leaves us vulnerable because it obscures what’s really happening as a result of the policy.

He showed here why he continues to be a source of inspiration for so many millions both here and abroad. His flawed personal life should not prevent us from acknowledging his contributions to the greater good.

Good for him for condemning those who are so outraged now about Move-on, but who stood by silently when Max Clelland, John McCain and John Kerry were smeared.

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:21:47 +0000

As former President Clinton says, “outrage” over a newspaper advertisement is a distraction from the real problem of the Iraq War.

But it does give current President Bush the opportunity to claim that his critics are really attacking our soldiers under fire.

By: Idiosyncrat

Idiosyncrat — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:17:38 +0000

Good on him. More politicians — left and right — need to be called out for their bombastic stupidity precisely because they are politicians.