682e83215724…

csdeven on September 17, 2007 at 6:41 PM

No disagreement. As I’ve mentioned on a few occasions it is all about strategy and how to persuade. Since the 06 election the repub base has done everything it can to act like the dem base after the 2000 election. Now that is a failed strategy the repubs shouldn’t want to repeat.

The progression from righteous outrage on Petraeus’s behalf to demagoguery for political gain…

eh, you’re losing me here. i mean, what practicly is the difference? what is the practical difference between democrat figures allowing themselves to be cast in the light of moveon’s ad by refusing to disagregate themselves from it and suggesting agreement with the moveon ad by refusing to disagregate themselves from it?

it’s all the same to me and i’m not at all interested in projectingself-interested motivs on people doing the right thing.

Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 12:06 PM

I believe they are also, but they don’t get involved until it’s their space that’s being threatened. They need to be brought to a patriotic attitude without having the threat of losing their country as the motivator.

Buy Danish on September 17, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Not that it will do much good since you have your mind firmly made up…

First reread the post – I did’t say Ann or Rush are traitors, I said they have uttered the description about others just as moveon did.

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one’s nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].”

Where does the ad make the moveon people who created fall into the above defintions?

Do you know for a fact that every person in the moveon organization approved of the ad?

The point is you are too quick to categorize and label entire groups of people and willing to suspend first amendment rights because you don’t agree with the message.

We stop being the country we are when you start doing that.

… but I’m still not voting for him.

UPDATE! Enemies of the State, but don’t you dare call them “traitors”!

Underwhelming, huh? Yeah. Kind of obvious but good empty calories for political junkies hungry for a snack: At this point, it is possible to envision how each of the three could lose their particular advantage as the campaign unfolds. Any……

The word is overplayed and has no basis in anything except opinion

Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Dude. It is very reasonable to conclude that the Left aid and abet the enemy, especially when they accuse a 5 star general who is running the War in Iraq of betraying our Country.

Kinda blows their “We support the troops but not the mission” meme, doesn’t it?

For you to say that “it has no basis in anything but opinion” is not true – it has a basis in fact and they are expressing their fact-based opinions about it.

However, there is not a single fact that you could present that could reasonably lead anyone to conclude that Rush and Coulter are traitors.

Moreover, Rush and Coulter are principled conservatives and they say what they say because they believe it to be true not because it is a gimmick to get attention. They use humor and satire to make their points, but they are far more than mere entertainers.

Sally Field is an entertainer.

csdeven on September 17, 2007 at 8:17 AM

When people talk about vigilance and defending our liberties they tend to forget that the hardest battle is the intellectual battle not the exercise of military force.
We must operate on the premise that 99.99% of our citizens are as patriotic as we are if we wish to persuade moderates that appeasement is not the answer.

Buy Danish on September 17, 2007 at 9:54 AM

It is about the slippery slope argument.

As for Coulter and Rush I believe that the word traitor has crossed their lips at some time or another. Because they have inferred it applies to Democrats no one objected. I don’t like it because the word is overplayed and has no basis in anything except opinion but more importantly because they drive people away from the party. They are entertainers and need a gimmick to keep the profit line going. They preach to the choir so to speak.

If I suggest that the second amendment needs to be reined in because the founders didn’t envision assault weapons it is likely you would tell me that if I am that concerned I should start a movement that would make an attempt to amend the constitution to that effect.
I submit the same applies to the suggestions we start stifling free speech, no matter how distasteful.

Way to go AZ…thanks a-freakin’ bunch

Because the right has an unfair advantage in putting its political message on talk radio. The left deserves equal time.

Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 5:32 AM

Please tell me that you don’t really believe this and are just trying to make a point about slippery slopes.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter say things that are meant to inflame. I don’t care for that approach but I can choose not to listen to or read them.

Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 7:51 AM

This is not an argument about “saying things that are meant to inflame”, it about the consequences of calling a General a traitor at a time of war. You just cannot compare Rush and Ann Coulter to Move.On – no way, no how.

It seems that because of his military background he is deluded into thinking that he can just give orders that will be followed. This intransigent mindset has characterized his Senate career.

I loathe MoveOn.org and would like to see them sued for libel and should be shunned and shamed, but you cannot just throw American citizens out of the Country because of a malicious ad in the Times.

As for the media covering this, Fox hasn’t said a word yet as it’s been 24/7 O.J.

By the way, McCain is also claiming he’s a Baptist now as he panders to the RR in South Carolina.

I really think McCain is off his rocker and not fit to govern.

Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 7:51 AM

I understand that. My point is that there are enough stupid and misguided people who do not know the difference between fact and fiction. They lap this stuff up with no concern for facts. Those people will not make the choice not to purchase the paper.

Like I said, in the end you’re probably right. The idiots who buy into this crap will get exactly what they deserve and the rest of us have to remain vigilant in our fight against the creeping claw of socialism.

csdeven on September 17, 2007 at 7:40 AM

I don’t like the ad either but what usually happens is that people who don’t like what a paper says or advertises they stop purchasing the paper.
Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter say things that are meant to inflame. I don’t care for that approach but I can choose not to listen to or read them.

In my opinion moveon made a huge mistake with the ad. I think some of the moderate democrats may see that the base has gone too far. Let them dictate the consequences through their votes. But I am convinced that if the right continues to talk about throwing people out for exercising their first amendment rights or throw the “traitor” label around as some are doing, they will cause those moderate democrats to say “ach it is just politics, they are all the same”.

Bradky on September 17, 2007 at 5:32 AM

For me it isn’t about left or right. It’s about fact and fiction. The NYT engaged in political activism when they should not be. The moveon.org ad was a spot ad to be run at anytime during the week. Yet in the body of the text it said this:

“Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”

The ad is written like the ad space was reserved for that day. Now I don’t know anything about advertising, so maybe moveon.org was allowed to change the text to reflect the proper chronology. I guess it really don’t matter. It’s not like we really need any more proof that the NYT is a leftist propaganda rag.

Bradky on September 16, 2007 at 11:00 PM

When the media are willing participants in the propagation of the message of moveon.org, then a very valuable check on our rights is non-functioning. We have a right to hear the truth from the media and our government should protect us from the concerted efforts of those who have designs on over-throwing this country from the inside.

This event should have been given coverage from both viewpoints. Instead what we have is a media organization that got involved in politics and other media organizations are giving them cover. Those are the facts and it is one example (of the worst) in a long line of media bias.

My concerns are to prevent this country from back-sliding into a socialist nightmare, but in the end you may be right. It is the natural function of the nature of man to take for granted his freedoms until he no longer has them. The American public is more interested in OJ and American Idol than there are about the slow decent into socialism this country is headed for. Those people will deserve what they get, and then they will find out how their right to have an unbiased media is slowly being eroded and the effect it has on their lives.

The fairness doctrine is about forcing corporations to air liberal political views on talk radio, so why would I be in favor of that?
jihadwatcher on September 17, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Because the right has an unfair advantage in putting its political message on talk radio. The left deserves equal time.

See it is about freedom of speech. You don’t like it because of the views it wants to promote. Before you go into a long diatribe about talk radio’s freedom of speech consider what you are suggesting about moveon.
Like I said you can’t have it both ways.

heroyalwhyness on September 16, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Could not have said it better myself. Probably not as well.

The difference is that moveon committed an act of defamation in their ad, which is NOT protected speech in most cases. Moveon is also trying to sabotage the war, an activity that is not protected speech, either.

I commend John McCain for saying what the Democrats (and the media) refuse to say. And I agree with him.

In addition to that if you are for “throwing them out” then you really should have no argument against the “fairness doctrine” since it is being done “to give equal voice to citizens”.
In short, you just can’t have it both ways to oppose one action while supporting the other.

The fairness doctrine is about forcing corporations to air liberal political views on talk radio, so why would I be in favor of that? Why should any radio station pay to air leftist propaganda, that the listeners don’t want to hear anyway, and that same propaganda is available on NPR, a publicly-funded radio station, and all the MSM TV stations?

No need to watch this now if you’re busy. You’ll be seeing it tomorrow on all the cable news channels as the left mounts its outrage/demagoguery counteroffensive.

Dare I say that you might think this is a bad thing? I dare, I dare. But it isn’t. The only way the lefties will cover this is if they can come at it from a “wingnuts are nuts” angle but if it gets the Moveon ad more play I don’t see how we can lose. Remember, no one is paying attention to politics except for about 20% of the populace which eats and drinks this horse-race you cover so well.