• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MoveOn.org ... "Shut UP!"

.. you know what? I'm going to apologize.
Mostly for one good reason. I mixed up MoveOn with DailyKOS (and a check of their back archives told me in one minute that was a big mistake)
While the Daily Kos is a collection of bloggers, they aren't completely radical either. Bill O'Liely likes to rant about them but other than that, what's your evidence they are "radical"?

What's your definition of radical?

My definition of right wing radical is trying to make the US a Christian State and harping to go to war with Iran for example. Certainly mainstream Republicans are not in those camps but many of the Evangelical Fundies and the NeoCons are.
 
And Moveon is not extreme or radical. Being against the Iraq war does not automatically make one extreme.

Being against the Iraq war does not automatically make one radical but the "Petraeus, Betray Us" ad does make one look radical or if not radical then at least bad, in the eyes of many people in the middle. I just can't believe decision makers at MoveOn decided they wanted to promote their views and then thought this idea up and decided they wanted to pay $100,000 to get it into a major newspaper.
 
Moveon has a comment discussing the ad:

Our ad on General Petraeus

Anyone just taking the Republican spin machine's exaggerated outrage as the only way the ad can be viewed without reading Moveon's side is allowing themselves to be manipulated. Form your own opinion, but at least base it on the facts, not the touted outrage.
 
I read the MoveOn site and they still don't get it.

The ad has generated a lot of coverage, they say? Yeah, and O.J. killing people generated a lot of coverage too but that doesn't mean it improved his image.

The ad has called Petraeus' credibility into question, they say? Oh really? I've seen no coverage at all (other than the MoveOn site I just went to) about Petraeus' credibility. Petraeus' credibility would've been questioned if MoveOn had questioned what Petraeus said without simultaneously questioning his motives. Instead, all the coverage has been about MoveOn using the word "betray" with reference to a US General, which implies impure and sinister _motives_ on Petraeus' part with regard to U.S. interests, which in turn is what people react to negatively.

MoveOn needs to open an office in every state that W won in 2004 and assign someone to live there...to just live there and spend time at the drug store and the gas station and the local meeting place, etc...and then when MoveOn has an idea for a national ad they can run it past these people and see if they think the people in that area will like it or will be repulsed by it. Because with the way they're operating now they're just not connecting.
 
Actually, #6, you would be surprised what the research in marketing shows about the benefit of messages even if negative. And frankly, I don't think Bush is perceived as very credible currently and I've heard a lot of people saying Petraeus just repeated Bush's less than credible claims.

People do not believe the surge accomplished much as far as I can tell, with the exception of the Bush ~30% core anyway.
 
Last edited:
Look, I'm ignoring the fact that I think expanding isolated voter issues to a VAST CONSPIRACY is bad. And, I disliked MoveOn's ad. There are better, and less emotional ways (Less ofa smear job) ways to say it didn't work.

However, that was their choice.

As for DailyKOS: (this was the top story when I looked at it today)

Mainer May Be First Pool Boy To Be Renditioned To Secret American Gulag
From yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle:
^ Do I need to say anything more?
 
Neither side wins with their base alone. Both need the middle to swing their way.
Elections don't swing the middle. The middle swings elections.

This is MoveOn.org's fundamental flaw. You don't change an electorate's mind during an election cycle. You get somebody elected and then he shifts the nation thourhg competent leadership.

Reagan shifted the nation right, but only after his election. They didn't elect him because he convinced them to be more conservative. They elected him because he wasn't Carter and then, during his eight years, the country shifted to be closer to him.

Bad governance shifts the electorate too. Bush is pushing the country leftward.

You don't shift the center during an election. You put up a candidate who is closer (or who can appear to be closer) to the center than your opponent. Then, if he governs well, the electorate will become comfortable with that candidate's politics and shift.

The wingnuts of the GOP got away with putting up conservative candidates and winning mostly because the Democrats ran a series of utterly incompetent campaigns. Bill Clinton is the only competent Presidential candidate the Democrats have had since JFK got shot. So it was easy to throw out conservatives and get them elected. And slowly, the country shifted rightward.

In the Democratic Party the middle is running the show which is why they come across as so wishy-washy.
When the Middle ran the show, Clinton got elected. Twice. Gore lost when he ran away from the middle. Kerry lost because he was such an incompetent campaigner he couldn't describe his own positions coherently.

The Democrats need competent centrist candidates. They have a unique opportunity this election, not merely because they have Bush, but because all of the GOP candidates appear to be as inept campaigning as the Democrats usually are.

All the talk about Hillary hate and "Will America elect a black man" is smoke and mirrors.

Here's an analogy. in American baseball, we spend the season worrying about fielding, batting and coaching. But once you get to the playoffs, one rule wipes that out: the team with the better bullpen will win.

In American politics we worry about all sorts of nonsense, and trivial late-night comedy fodder. But when it comes to the election only two things matter: Did you run a competent campaign? and Do you appear to be more centrist than your opponent?
 
MoveOn needs to open an office in every state that W won in 2004 and assign someone to live there...to just live there and spend time at the drug store and the gas station and the local meeting place, etc...and then when MoveOn has an idea for a national ad they can run it past these people and see if they think the people in that area will like it or will be repulsed by it. Because with the way they're operating now they're just not connecting.

Well, that all depends on what their objective is. If it's to get policy objectives enacted, you're correct. If, on the other hand, their primary objective is to ensure ideological purity within the democratic party, well, what you describe is completely unnecessary, and in fact might be counter-productive.

I leave as an exercise to the reader which objective Moveon's actions fit best with.
 
With apologies to Oliver for the hijack, Facts Belie Petraeus' Case, Say Humanitarian Groups.

So, direct me to the thread this belongs in and I'll take my toys and go there. ;)
This is one of the better criticisms of the presentation, in that it covers one of the items left unbriefed.

According to the poll, only 29 percent of Iraqis now think the situation will get better, compared to 64 percent who shared that optimism before the so-called "surge" of troops began.
The virtual ethnic cleansing has been covered in the US MSM. Last article I saw on it a few weeks ago was in Newsweek.

While I question their attribution of any general Iraqi optimism to Patraeus' presentation, and don't know how solid the poll is, it seems to fit similar polls in the past few years on the views of Iraqis polled.
"One of the most cynical things General Petraeus did was celebrate the fact that there's a decline in sectarian violence," Susskind said. "But that drop reflects the success of ethnic cleansing rather than anything the U.S. military has done. The reality is that there are places where killing is down because there's nobody left to kill."
Celebrate? I didn't see Patraeus celebrate much of anything. It was a very sober brief.

The language in this article is rather blatant, but the point is worth raising due to what was left out of the brief. Back to my thread title elsewhere:

Damning With Faint Praise Depending on how one looks at things, you could argue that either Pres Bush shot himself in the foot with the report, that he shot the General in the foot, or that the General shot himself in the foot, in the information campaign regarding Iraq.

DR
 
Last edited:
Many on the left complained when Bush used the phrase 'democrat party' as it was (apparently) a deliberate mangling of the democratic party's name to create a subtle smear.

I think the use of 'General Patraeus or General Betray Us?' is a deliberate mangling of his name to create a not so subtle smear.

I haven't noticed many complaints from the left. Have I missed them?
 
Many on the left complained when Bush used the phrase 'democrat party' as it was (apparently) a deliberate mangling of the democratic party's name to create a subtle smear.

I think the use of 'General Patraeus or General Betray Us?' is a deliberate mangling of his name to create a not so subtle smear.

I haven't noticed many complaints from the left. Have I missed them?

Personally, I think the smear on Patraeus' name is downright childish as well as being incredibly stupid. I also think that the attacks on Patraeus for simply doing his job to the best of his abilities, and with the best of intentions, is damned stupid too.

I'm (kinda) left*. I apologise for the morons who call themselves "left" and do that kind of garbage.

_______

* Actually, I am a mildly conservative, old-fashioned trade-unionist social democrat. In American terms it either makes me "left" or an authoritarian bastard, they can't seem to decide when flaming me.
 
Well, they took a political action and got a political response. Secondly, the NYT is sorta liberal. Not much. Thirdly, MoveOn IS radical. It's like LGF, they're both on the radical side of their respective wing. Or spectra. Whatever.

I beg to disagree.

The NYT is liberal, not as much as some perhaps, but they also seem to think they are on planet X reporting about Earth, pretending to take no sides.

MoveOn is a hit group for a political agenda. No argument there, even from them I think.

LGF is neither. If you look it has as much ability to dig at the right as the left, it's just that the left provides so many more opportunities.:rolleyes:

But seriously, it is dedicated to exposing the hypocrisy and danger in Islamic Fundamentalism, and those who apologize for same. Nearly everything posted there (OP, not ditto comments) is a news item, typically one not printed by the MSM in the USA. You can take the comments as you will, but the news is not manufactured.

Then you didn't mention Daily Kos. I travel there sometimes and find it far more disgusting (sorry Skeptigirl) than the OPs at LGF. I can't fathom how the Democratic leadership can give it such weight, except perhaps that someone tells them it's important and they have never actually read this garbage.(The little turd from Iran is "Hot", for example:eye-poppi).
 
I've read LGF. I used to read it daily, as well as Anti Iditorian Rottlier, Power Line, Captain's Quarters and MIchelle Malkin. And all of them, to me, seemed heavily slanted to the right (the second is an outright right)

You say they dig at the right, but that's usually when they take a moderate stance
 
I'm not as well traveled, although I did visit Malkin until it became clear she was a creationist in disguise; but she does have a good bite. I still like LGF though. Short bites and to the point, and often not to be seen anywhere else, until later.
 
LGF? Would that be Little Green Footballs or Lesbian and Gay Foundation?

Malkin is also quite the disinformation spewer.
 
I'm still waiting to here the specifics which make Moveon "radical" or "extreme".

You have to remember, some of these folks are people who have called Bill and Hillary Clinton "extremely liberal"... reality is not exactly their strong suit.
 

Back
Top Bottom