But you’ve made not just one (rather mild) assertion, but two: the second implying that the very inactivity you claim directly affected the result: that MoveOn shut up and, thereby, permitted the Dems to win. Presumably, we are invited to believe that had MoveOn not demonstrated such reserve and caution, the Dems would have lost.
You have offered two positions, not just one. The first is somewhat supportable, the second is patent nonsense.
Just so. Perhaps the day will dawn when I will accept your bald assertions as fact. Today is not that day.
So are you now acknowledging that MoveOn was pretty darn quiet in 2006, and just trying to gloss over that fact? I don’t see how the discussion can proceed further until you admit this.
Well, then, let me help! You can demonstrate the truth of your position, using facts, cites, etc. You are free to presume your first point as a given, if you like, and then demonstrate your second (utterly laughable) proposition. That is how you may proceed, regardless of any concession on my part or lack thereof. Otherwise, we are free to assume that you recognize that second point as indefensible, and are merely in search of an excuse to bail.
“Oh, I have all the facts right at my fingertips, and can entirely destroy your position, but am only restrained from doing so by your refusal to accept my first point.”
Please do not attempt to blame the poverty of your argument on me.
No, I’m claiming that it needs no such rinsing to begin with. Try paying attention…yawn.
Why - are you going to say anything worth paying attention to?
Sorry, but this is more as if I’d come across the pix he took of himself having sex with his pre-teen daughters.
If you want to rebut my argument that he’s a betrayer, do so. Put up or shut up on that point. But until you put up (and just saying it’s “deplorable” for me to characterize him like that isn’t a rebuttal), my description is apt, and yours is not.
No, it was a response to Ravenman about the political consequences. It was not a summation. But it did depend on the argument I’d made earlier.
You will notice that this depends on your unsupported assertion that this constitutes character assassination.
You will also note that in the bulk of post 67 that you refuse to acknowledge, that I argue that the characterization is justified. You will further note that no one, yourself included, has yet attempted to rebut my argument in this thread.
You’ve called it ‘deplorable’ and repeated some facts whose relevance I rebutted earlier in the thread, before you ever showed up. Neither of which qualifies.
If you’ve done more than that, then please to quote the language that you regard as a rebuttal.
I’ve not retracted it. You haven’t attacked it. You’ve attacked a redefinition of that statement that you have imposed on it. I don’t defend that. That’s between you and yourself.
I am most certainly not ignoring the moral component of General David BetrayUs’ actions. He’s betrayed us.
We had creative nicknames for nearly every officer in our chain of command. Lots of the chiefs as well. For that matter, my username here is my Navy nickname.
One more time: MoveOn was the 7th most active 527 in 2004, and didn’t crack the top 50 in 2006. They endorsed 27 candidates in 2004, including many in red states. They endorsed 10 in 2006, only one in a competitive race, and the rest were strong or safe Democratic races.
I’ve already cited those. They are facts. If this isn’t overwhelming evidence proving that MoveOn basically shut up in 2006, then the problem rests with the fact that you can’t admit you’re wrong.
One more time: do you agree or disagree that MoveOn was basically AWOL in the 2006 campaign?
Maybe where you live, they were. Not here. I got a metric buttload of e-mails advising me where to meet with other hive-minders, where the candidates were gonna be, stuff like that there. But, point of fact, I don’t recall getting any marching orders (endorsements) from the Move On Politburo. You wanna guess why? 'Cause there isn’t one. Your metrics may or may not have any bearing. Did the number of hits on their website decrease dramatically? Was there a drastic drop in membership? You can reasonably assess the effectiveness of an ad campaign by measuring sales, how do you measure anything so amorphous and anarchic as MoveOn? You don’t even try, if you’ve the good sense God gave a goose.
(And by the way: you didn’t actually cite any of those numbers, but I take your word for it that its in print somewhere. I just don’t think it proves what you think it proves…)
So, at best, your first premise is dubious, though not unreasonable, necessarily. It just isn’t falsifiable, the metrics that apply to fish don’t all apply to rabbits.
But even if that were given, which it isn’t, your conclusion that this was directly causative of the Dems extraordinary surge in the election? Ludicrous.
I couldn’t slog thru those various blogs to find the actual quote of the possible anonymous “troop” (unclear if it’s even more than one) who coined that term. Can you point the exact location and quote it?
Democratic Underground is a cite these days. Interesting. I’m sure you won’t object when **Shodan **or Mr Moto uses FreeRepublic as a cite in the future, right? (Not that they ever have in the past, btw.)
Funny, MoveOn doesn’t even claim the Democratic victory as a success story.
But as long as you got some emails and invites to house parties, and you’re satisfied with that, I suppose the bar for effort by a 527 has been set so low that they can run fewer advertisements, raise less money, and endorse fewer candidates in 2008. Perhaps that’s a strategy we can both be happy with.
Well, good for them, because it would have been pretty stupid for them to claim the success as theirs. There were literally millions of people who went to the polls and voted correctly who never heard of MoveOn, unless they were channel surfing and caught Sean Hannity tearing his hair and chewing the carpet over them dissing The Leader.
That would be a wild exaggeration of thier significance only comparable to your own.
MoveOn claims success for stopping John Bolton’s UN nomination, renewing the Voting Rights Act, reversing budget cuts to health and welfare programs, and banning torture. They haven’t yet had the temerity to claim credit for Bush not canceling any elections or mobilizing an online petition to make sure Karl Rove does not stop the sun from coming up tomorrow, but hey, give them time.
I understand its pretty difficult for the dem candidates to condemn this type of outrageous hate speech from Moveon.org. Can you imagine if they dared criticize MoveON?? They would be their next target… and you don’t want to be the victim of moveon’s unreasonable vitriol. Yeah, the dem candidates are pwned.
The general had not even testified yet and MoveOn had their smear ad out that same day accusing him of outright lies. How is anyone suppose to take them seriously when they play dirty like this?
Was he? I have offered evidence above, though I’m admittedly not in a position to make a judgement of it, no one has offered to refute it. Evidence that forthrightly suggests that the books are, in fact, being cooked. If true, this suggests that MoveOn’s attack is not only not slander, but wholly and entirely deserved.
Wouldn’t you agree that if said is evidence is soundly based in fact, then making the public aware of that is hardly “playing dirty”? More to the point, wouldn’t that be a duty and an obligation?
MoveOn has clear opinions on the matter, several of which I unreservedly share. Are you suggesting that so long as a politician can find a uniformed mouthpiece for his horseshit, he is immune to their criticism?
“All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It’s horrifying. It’s outrageous. It’s disgraceful. It’s just beyond the pale … It’s … oh, my heavens … say, is it a bit stuffy in here? … I think I’m going to … Could I have a glass of … oh, dear [thud].”
“It just isn’t done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war.”
–Michael Kinsley
He’d made quite a few statements telegraphing what he’d say, which is what he did say. There was no real doubt what it would be.
An accusation which the bulk of the evidence, including a number of reports from other agencies of the very same government, supports.
How is anyone supposed to take a man, even one in uniform, seriously when he testifies dishonestly? How is anyone supposed to take seriously someone who believes whatever they’re told by a government official simply because he happens to be wearing a uniform?
Feel free to deplore a free-speech political ad, if that’s all you’ve got. I do hope you can understand how it’s possible for others to consider the deaths and destruction and lies that started and continue this war to be more worthy of our indignation, though.
Now: Why is General Petraeus due absolute deference, not only from us but from his own Commander in Chief, when Generals Abizaid, Casey, Shinseki, Riggs, Batiste, Eaton, and Zinni, to name just a few with just as direct knowledge and responsibility on the ground, were not? Is it something other than his willingness to say whatever supports Decider Guy’s (and his partisan media outlets’) view of his own righteousness? Could it just be that Petraeus’ own commanding officer’s view of him as “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” might have some credibility to it?