Repudiations: MoveOn 'Betray Us' ad v. Boehner's "Small Price to Pay" comment

[kaylasdad99]

“Has a traitorous streak”? That’s overstating a bit, no?

Committed a betrayal of the public trust? MoveOn makes a pretty good argument that he did just that.

Very disappointing in a man with such a distinguished and honorable record of service.

[RTFirefly]

@magellan01

This implies that I made this accusation of you, and that now you’re trying an “oh yeah, I know you are but…” But I didn’t, which would explain why you didn’t attempt to defend yourself against such a claim. It doesn’t explain, though, why you chose to make this claim out of the blue. Seems like your grasping for something…

Let me explain the idea of responding to “You did X” with “yeah, but you did Y.”

New concept, huh?

No, your words are still there. Here they are again: “They may or may not have done well politically, but at least they tried.” You want to make it a purely political equation.

I did. You haven’t shown otherwise.

I think I can see where you’re having trouble. Let me help you. Most people would consider suggesting that a man who has spent his life serving his country in the military, putting himself in harm’s way, and serving in a such an honorable manner that he is confirmed for his current post unamimously, that such a characterization is absolutely deplorable. But I guess I can’t fault you if you don’t have a handle on how honor might apply. I hope this helps for the future.

Ad Hominem. “John Smith is a fine, upstanding member of the community, so he couldn’t have possibly been molesting his children.” That’s your argument in a nutshell.

(I responded to some of the particulars in post 77 (and earlier - see references in that post). Again, reading is a valued skill.)

I commented on your parting shot. Now if you want to say that your parting shot does not reflect your thoughts, go right ahead. That you misstated your beliefs or typed inaccurately, go ahead. I would hope that would be tha case. Though I am not optimistic.

Oddly enough, I do expect you to consider the context of a remark when responding to it. I admit that I should know better by now.

Your analogy does not work. With the buying of bread and the cost associated with it, the costs are personal, restricted to the person who seeks to gain the benefit of bread. Here, you focus on the political cost, as if that is the important consideration. And that misses the point entirely. Remove any political cost from the equation and the ad was simply deplorable. Not just unwise, or politically risky, be deplorable. It sought to impugn a man by striking at the heart of how he has lived his life: to suggest that a man who has served his country in uniform—with honor—has a traitorous streak. The fact that there might be a political cost in doing so is healthy, a saving grace, of sorts. The fact that you focus on the political aspect of it and not on the disgust of the act itself is exactly the point. It is illuminating. And consistent with what I’ve come to expect from you.

You see, here’s the deal.

1. You can say the analogy doesn’t work because of the difference between personal and political costs, but you have to explain why that matters. You don’t.

2. You can say the ad’s deplorable, but I and others in this thread have already argued that it wasn’t, that the ‘betrayal’ language was completely justified. You need to respond to those arguments - some of which were, ironically, made by yours truly in the part of post 67 that you refuse to consider.

Since we’re at the point where we’re not so much debating as I am explaining how you’re failing to debate this question in any meaningful way, I hope you will excuse me if future responses from me are somewhat minimal.

[DoctorJ]

I think I can see where you’re having trouble. Let me help you. Most people would consider suggesting that a man who has spent his life serving his country in the military, putting himself in harm’s way, and serving in a such an honorable manner that he is confirmed for his current post unamimously, that such a characterization is absolutely deplorable.

I’m still curious about why this doesn’t apply to John Kerry. His honorable service didn’t keep people from calling him a traitor when he came home and lent his voice to those speaking out against Vietnam. It also didn’t keep the very people who are now beatifying Petraeus from wearing purple band-aids at the Republican convention to make fun of Kerry’s service.

Could it be that your deference to Petraeus comes not from his position or background, but from the fact that you like what he’s saying?

[marshmallow]

@Ravenman

And I think this kind of childish namecalling does absolutely nothing to convince people who aren’t already MoveOn sympathizers to join the anti-war cause. In fact, I think it does considerable damage to making anti-war the mainstream.

I didn’t know David Broder had a SDMB account.

[RTFirefly]

@marshmallow

I didn’t know David Broder had a SDMB account.

Excellent snark! But even with how routinely Ravenman and I seem to disagree on everything, he really is much smarter than Broder, who’s been running on fumes and reputation for decades.

[marshmallow]

I just don’t understand what they’re literally saying. Just about everyone who can be anti-Iraq war has made up their mind. The only way there could be more people against the war is if it started to peel them from that recalcitrant 30% who supports Bush on everything (except his ideas about immigration). Are they really suggesting that the MoveOn ad is going to switch people from anti-war to pro-war? Or what? If a summer long propaganda campaign about the success of the surge can’t reverse it, how is a $70K newspaper ad that most people probably haven’t even heard about going to do it via unintended consequences?

[RTFirefly]

David Petraeus is an honorable man:

Sept. 14, 2007 - In endorsing Gen. David Petraeus’s recommendations on Iraq, President George W. Bush said Thursday night that at least 21,500 U.S. combat forces, plus support troops, could leave Iraq and come home by next July. Curiously, the first military unit designated by Petraeus to return is the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit based at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., north of San Diego.

But the 13th MEU, a support unit that has been in Iraq on its current tour for about three months, was already scheduled to return home from Iraq on Nov. 17. Their new date of arrival under the drawdown plan? Still Nov. 17. Other Marine units have been in Iraq as much as three times longer than the 13th MEU, and some active-duty Army soldiers are serving 15-month tours, the longest of the war. Relatives of the 2,000-member 13th MEU, most of whom have known for more than a month that the unit was coming home, are collectively a bit confused by the inclusion of the 13th MEU in the announcement of troop cuts, and some are even angry.

“I think General Petraeus is using normal circumstances and turning them into some kind of big deal,” says Melissa Hurt, 24, wife of a 13th MEU Sgt. Andy Hurt, 24. Originally from Minnesota, the couple has been married for four years and they have a 9-month-old son. “I don’t understand how this can be called a troop reduction since Andy was already scheduled to come home in November and was not scheduled to return to Iraq."

A unit returning on the date they’ve long been scheduled to return = drawdown?

But St. David Petraeus says it is, and David Petraeus is an honorable man.

[Mr.Moto]

@RTFirefly

David Petraeus is an honorable man:
A unit returning on the date they’ve long been scheduled to return = drawdown?

But St. David Petraeus says it is, and David Petraeus is an honorable man.

From the Petraeus testimony (PDF):

Based on these considerations, and having worked the battlefield geometry with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno to ensure that we retain and build on the gains for which our troopers have fought, I have recommended a drawdown of the surge forces from Iraq. In fact, later this month, the Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed as part of the surge will depart Iraq. Beyond that, if my recommendations are approved, that unit’s departure will be followed by the withdrawal of a brigade combat team without replacement in mid-December and the further redeployment without replacement of four other brigade combat teams and the two surge Marine battalions in the first 7 months of 2008, until we reach the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams by mid-July 2008.

From the President’s Oval Office address:

Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

Clearly the drawdown is in the context of not replacing troops rotating home. And if you had done your research, you would have known that.

[Ravenman]

@RTFirefly

Excellent snark! But even with how routinely Ravenman and I seem to disagree on everything, he really is much smarter than Broder, who’s been running on fumes and reputation for decades.

Aww, shucks. I can also say that you’re infinitely more entertaining than Broder. (Are we damning each other with faint praise?)

Though I think I’ve already contributed what I have to say to this discussion, I can’t help but follow up on my Broder-esque comment with this article, which I think explains quite well how MoveOn is an organization that will pretty much always give Dems more headaches than victories. At least for Democrats holding office, I think the phrase “can’t live with 'em, can’t live without 'em” fits MoveOn absolutely perfectly.

[elucidator]

You see, its just this kind of thing which is why you guys never win any elections. Just trying to help.

[Ravenman]

Erm… you mean like in 2006, when MoveOn basically shut up and let the Democrats win?

[elucidator]

Yeah, you said that before. I’m a bit surprised, as a MoveOn member, to hear it. No doubt, you have conclusive proof right at your fingertips.

So bring, already.

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

Aww, shucks. I can also say that you’re infinitely more entertaining than Broder. (Are we damning each other with faint praise?)

Though I think I’ve already contributed what I have to say to this discussion, I can’t help but follow up on my Broder-esque comment with this article, which I think explains quite well how MoveOn is an organization that will pretty much always give Dems more headaches than victories. At least for Democrats holding office, I think the phrase “can’t live with 'em, can’t live without 'em” fits MoveOn absolutely perfectly.

Well, I gotta admit that referencing VandeHei and Harris in The Politico is the perfect followup to Broderesque comments.

From your link:

For the past couple of decades, the most successful national Democrats have been practitioners of defensive politics. These candidates practiced the politics of reassurance — letting independent voters know that they were not as secular, not as dovish, not as socially liberal as the popular perception of national Democrats.

Other than to describe Clinton as a practitioner of this sort of politics, the authors provide absolutely no substantiation for this assertion.

I won’t take this further, as I’d like to keep this thread within shouting distance of Petraeus and/or Boehner. But while I think we have done a bunch of “do the Dems need to lean more to the left or more to the center?” threads in the past, I’m always game for another if you’d like to start one.

[elucidator]

As regards the statistics available from the Commander of Candor, the following…

Fuzzy Numbers... Again

Fuzzy numbers…again

Your correspondent frankly admits to statistical retardation, so this is open to refutation from more sophisticated Dopers. However, if it stands up to scrutiny, I would suggest that the Good General is fudging the facts to fit an agenda. If such is the case, an accusation of “betrayal” may be poorly worded, but fundamentally accurate.

[Ravenman]

@elucidator

No doubt, you have conclusive proof right at your fingertips.

So bring, already.

It’s kind of hard to prove the absence of something, but the fact that MoveOn only endorsed one candidate in what I’d call a close race (Farrell vs. Shays) speaks volumes. As does the fact that MoveOn apparently only ran four ads against Republican candidates in 2006. (See the right side of the page.) I’ve googled and googled and can’t find anything about MoveOn holding public events or running ads in support of candidates like Webb, Tester, or McCaskill, who come from non-blue states. Nor can I find anything about MoveOn running ads in opposition to their Republican opponents. The only conclusion I can draw is that MoveOn just clammed up in 2006.

Now, I believe that MoveOn did contribute funds to Democratic candidates, but I can’t find anything to suggest that they were anywhere near as active as they were in 2004, when they were quite vocal in supporting Kerry with attack ads and that Bruce Springsteen concert tour, not to mention endorsements of high profile races in non-blue states like Bowles in NC, Carson in OK, Castor in FL, Hoeffel in PA, Knowles in AK, Majette in GA, and so on and so on, not even getting into House races.

[magellan01]

@DoctorJ

I’m still curious about why this doesn’t apply to John Kerry. His honorable service didn’t keep people from calling him a traitor when he came home and lent his voice to those speaking out against Vietnam. It also didn’t keep the very people who are now beatifying Petraeus from wearing purple band-aids at the Republican convention to make fun of Kerry’s service.

Could it be that your deference to Petraeus comes not from his position or background, but from the fact that you like what he’s saying?

I don’t particularly like or dislike what he’s saying. If he were to say all is fucked, we have no hope of turning things around, we should leave tomorrow, I’d be fine with that. If that position was confirmed by other generals currently on the ground and actually caused us to then leave, glad, even.

As far as the Kerry issue, two things. One, I thing attempting to equate kerry’s service with that of Patraeus is a huge stretch. One man served a few months in combat and requested he get out. The other has made a career of it. One took actions that, as well-intentioned as they might have been, many believe directly helped the enemy and lead to prolonging the war and made things worse for our POWs. The other was asked to take charge of Iraq, by a unanimous vote, and to report back his observations. One attempted to separate himself from what should have beenviewed as honorable service by tossiing away his medals, then sought the presidency by holding them up for all to fawn over. You can give Kerry the benefit of every doubt, he still is not Patraeus. The unanimous vote is proof of that.

[John_Mace]

I wouldn’t overplay the whole “unanimous vote” thing. It could mean many different things, and we’ll never really know precisely what. Some may have simply felt he was the best man that Bush would nominate, and someone had to do it, so it might as well be him. Given the situation in Iraq, it would not be a good idea for Congress to stall on such an appointment unless the guy was really, really bad.

[magellan01]

@RTFirefly

Let me explain the idea of responding to “You did X” with “yeah, but you did Y.”

Oh boy. This is precisely what you did. I commented on a particular line you wrote. Part of your defense(?) is that “yeah, but I wrote other stuff, too.”

@RTFirefly

I did. You haven’t shown otherwise.

Your statement itself shows that you are trying to rinse MoveOn’s act of any moral failing. Try paying attention to what you write next time.

@RTFirefly

Ad Hominem. “John Smith is a fine, upstanding member of the community, so he couldn’t have possibly been molesting his children.” That’s your argument in a nutshell.

Not close. And pathetically sad. Now try paying attention. If John Smith was by all accounts a fine, upstanding member of the community, even coaching a kid’s soccer team, what would you say of someone, who might disagree with his coaching style, who starts spreading rumors—with no basis—that he is a pedophile. According to you, because it is possible that he might be a pedophile, making the accusation is fine. And doing so is morally neutral. Newsfuckingflash, Bubb, it is deplorable. I hope this helps to make up for the obvious holes in your formative years.

@RTFirefly

Oddly enough, I do expect you to consider the context of a remark when responding to it. I admit that I should know better by now.

Again, nice try. You made a specific statement. It was its own paragraph even. It was a summation of sorts. If you wish to retract it or alter it, go ahead and do so. Until then, you’re stuck with being the one fanatsizing that the political metric you want to use is the only one. Or even the important one.

@RTFirefly

You see, here’s the deal.

1. You can say the analogy doesn’t work because of the difference between personal and political costs, but you have to explain why that matters. You don’t.

Must I explain everything to you. Well, it appears so. It matters because based on your (poor) analogy the buying of bread is a closed system. You decide if the cost, in dollars or in other opportunity costs, is worth it. It’s as simple as that. With the MoveOn ad, you seek to make it similar to that, by just weighing the potential political cost against the benefit of runniing it. But it is not a closed system, they brough someone else into the equation: Patraeus. The political equation that you focus on is still there, yes, but now there is a moral component: the attempted character assination of a man that has devoted his life to serving his country in uniform. It is particularly deplorable because the attack goes to the heart of that service. Additionally, there has no indication that his service has been anything but honorable. Again, this is evidenced by his unanimous confirmation.

@RTFirefly

2. You can say the ad’s deplorable, but I and others in this thread have already argued that it wasn’t, that the ‘betrayal’ language was completely justified. You need to respond to those arguments - some of which were, ironically, made by yours truly in the part of post 67 that you refuse to consider.

I’ve done so. If you want me to respond to a particular issue, point it out. But first I’d ask you to respond to the particular statement I DID comment on. You have yet to either retract or defend that particular statement. Which is it? Shucking, jiviing, obfuscating and attemptiing to redirect focus do not qualify as either.

@RTFirefly

Since we’re at the point where we’re not so much debating as I am explaining how you’re failing to debate this question in any meaningful way, I hope you will excuse me if future responses from me are somewhat minimal.

Excuse? I’d welcome it. You can start with one word. Do you retract that statement or defend it, meaniing that you think either that it is fine to ignore the moral component of their actionds or that there is not one.

Ready…GO!

[elucidator]

A bit odd, Raven. Your first site for an absence of political activity on the part of MoveOn is a web page about that very activity. Fund raising, endorsing, that sort of thing.

I can well understand the difficulty of proving a negative, perhaps it would have been wiser not to have asserted such a thing. Twice.

[Ravenman]

@elucidator

A bit odd, Raven. Your first site for an absence of political activity on the part of MoveOn is a web page about that very activity. Fund raising, endorsing, that sort of thing.

I should have known that you’d find a way to avoid dealing with the substance of what I’ve shown. I’ll put it in bullet points so it’s easier to read:

• In 2006, the number MoveOn’s endorsements went down, and the endorsements that they did give were not in any key competitive races. Their advertising went down by a very substantial margin. There is no evidence that they had any kind of high profile – hell, even a moderate profile – activity in any swing state, and again, no endorsements in any of those states. According to OpenSecrets.org, MoveOn didn’t even rank in the Top 50 most active 527s.

• In 2004, MoveOn endorsed many candidates in statewide races in conservative states – North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Alaska, and South Carolina, just to name a few (let’s set aside the fact that all those candidates lost). OpenSecrets said MoveOn as the seventh most active 527.

And your retort is, in essence, that MoveOn hasn’t folded up shop, so therefore you’re right? Come on. You simply have to admit that MoveOn’s presence in the 2006 election was far, far less active than in 2004, if for no other reason than they endorsed 27 candidates in '04, and 10 in '06 (including one who ran unopposed). If you can’t admit that, then one has to wonder what use it is to debate someone who seemingly can’t admit that they are in error.