Senate votes 72-25 to condemn MoveOn.org ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember when I said,

applesanity said:
The best thing you can do for tasteless and disgusting people is to give them even more facetime. Bet you anything that MoveOn.org's website traffic jumped eleventy billion percent this week.
Click to expand...

Well... as of September 20th:

attachment.php

That freakishly gigantic peak you see all the way on the right is yesterday.

Percent of global Internet users who visit this site:
3 mos. Avg. - 0.0052%
1 wk. Avg. - 0.011%
Yesterday - 0.023%

Alexa traffic rank based on a combined measure of page views and users (reach)
3 mos. Avg. - 35,873
1 wk. Avg. - 15,214
Yesterday - 6,685

This ad is the best thing to happen for MoveOn.org. Brought to you by thin-skinned Republicans. No Bruxley, no - all this non-binding condemnation is gonna backfire.
 

Attachments

  • graph.JPG
    graph.JPG
    23.5 KB · Views: 81
Personally, I'd rather that Congress waste it's time debating and voting on useless resolutions if the alternative is creating more laws that abridge my rights, restrict my freedoms or stick government's hand deeper into my wallet.
 
You mean that it's OK to slander a General of the military?
Click to expand...

Only during a time of war and, oh yeah, when you want to start a silly campaign to discredit a general who was confirmed by Democrats. No need to worry about the morale of the troops who are fighting that war, at least not to MoveOn or any of the other groups that are so eager for defeat in Iraq. :rolleyes:

It reminds me of the campaign the Democrats tried to use against Alito during the confirmation hearings; he was a racist who shouldn't be confirmed. It wasn't very effective, and his wife finally put an end to that stupidity.
 
I bet that

when Ed Gillespie, the RNC, and the echo chamber were slandering Max Cleland back in 2002, suggesting that he blew off his own freakin' limbs, everybody here was up in arms about it, and condemning the attacks and those who made them...

Right?

--Shannon
 
So if you represent a bunch of classless buffoons you are required to sink to their level

That is, in effect, what has been proposed

I think the vote was a waste of time EXCEPT for the sheerest possibility that it might create a more civil tone in Washington

In the end.....MO just came out and said what a lot of dems insinuate
 
Of all the things that are possibly wrong with the current state of the U.S. and with the republican party, a frigging AD is what's got republicans panties in a bunch... CRY MORE :rolleyes:
 
The ad is a reflection of what is wrong with America and the vote tally shows who it's coming from. Republicans aren't the problem. A far left pariah and the Democrat leadership IS the problem.

When our enemy has the same political goals as the Democrat party leadership, and at every turn The Democrat leadership is looking for new ways to give amnesty to illegal aliens, thats a problem.

If they were to work as hard at attacking Islamic fascism and illegal immigration as they do at attacking republicans how much further along would we be.

I sincerely believe that when, and ONLY when, we are perceived to be UNITED in the fight to destroy Islamic fascism and unyielding to that end, will they see the futility and be forced to address their political grievances in a CIVILIZED way.

Let's be realistic. The Democrat leadership WANTS defeat because they have all of their political capital staked on it. They WANT amnesty because they see a huge population of beholdant, likely Democrat voters.

So far they have succeeded only in garnering the scorn of th public (can't get ANYTHING supported now) and splitting their party almost right in half.

Like I keep saying. Don't change a thing, ratchet up the volume. Bet on the failure of others and use slander and lies to get ahead, this will ALWAYS happen. Public scorn and inability to form any support.

What is really the big problem with the Democrat leadership saying "FINALLY, a strategy that is working in Iraq, now let's get behind this General and drive this home and show our enemies that the time of American division is past and we are United." How does that hurt the Democrat leadership other then to irritate MoveOn and OBL? When is a Democrat leader going to say that the honor of the UnitedStates is more importat then the Democrat party?
 
What is really the big problem with the Democrat leadership saying "FINALLY, a strategy that is working in Iraq, now let's get behind this General and drive this home and show our enemies that the time of American division is past and we are United." How does that hurt the Democrat leadership other then to irritate MoveOn and OBL? When is a Democrat leader going to say that the honor of the UnitedStates is more importat then the Democrat party?
Click to expand...

This makes the assumption that the strategy is working, which is hardly a noncontroversial issue. Not looking to debate it here, just pointing out that part of your argument requires accepting as simple fact that which is still contested.

Also, it's the "Democratic party."
 
Barack Obama stated that he did not vote on it in protest because the whole idea of the vote was to score cheap political points.
Click to expand...

That would be a truthful statement if, and only if, that man were not running for President. The real reason he didn't vote on it is because he is afraid of how his vote would have cost him politically.

His choices and (IMHO) how it affects him politically:

Yea: Some of his most ardent supporters lose a lot of enthusiasm; he gets a marginal gain at best with the rest of the public. Obama is now a new way to spell "Kerry". See "Flip-Flop".

Nay: His most ardent supporters (who are largely out of touch with the rest of the public) love him all the more. The rest of the public crosses him off the list. Obama is a new way to spell "Dean".

Abstain: He can hope that the public will forget that he's a spineless weasel in time for him to get a good showing in the primaries. After all, eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Say what you will about HRC, but she at least cast a vote on the resolution.
 
ConfuseUs, I think honestly that you (and this entire thread) are overestimating the actual effect this vote will have in anything but the ultra-short term.

I don't think this vote will still be on the minds of any but the extremists (on both sides) by the primaries, let alone the general. Heck, most of the extremists will probably have moved on by then.

Pun unintended but unavoidable.

Though I'd agree that he probably intentionally took the weasel's way out. But honestly, were I in his shoes, I'd have gone with an abstention too. Since "man, what?" wasn't an option.

The ad and this vote are largely a non-issue. They're like the Anna Nicole Smith of the political realm.
 
attachment.php


MoveOn directs Hillary and Obama to not fund troops unless there is a withdraw attached and they needed to speak out more and soon. abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/moveons-challen.html

72 Hours Later, Hillary And Obama quickly obeyed MoveOn.org's demand.

Hillary: "I have voted against funding this war and I will vote against funding this war as long as it takes ..." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Remarks At The Service Employees International Union Member Political Action Conference, Washington, DC, 9/17/07)


Obama: "If there is a funding bill that does not have a timetable for when we begin withdrawal, and the completion -- a plan for how that withdrawal will proceed -- I will not support it." (Teddy Davis, Jonathan Greenberger, and Donna Hunter, "Clinton, Obama Take No Funding Pledge,")

abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/clinton-obama-r.html

It seems that in response to being publicly scorned, MoveOn is publicly illustrated the strength of their hold. A couple days later this vote, and the list of those they influence grew.

This is an example of the relevance of the vote past what was also stated in post #39. The anonymity of who is directed by MoveOn is gone now. We now have Democrats and 'MoveOn Democrats'. Just the problem House Representative Clyburn so prophetically said would come from progress in Iraq for the Democrat leadership. He was referring to the House but given the deep split in the Democrat Party votes in the Senate it seems to be true there also. Again, those splits having the same Members' names as this vote.

Rep. Clyburn's interview:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/30/VI2007073001325.html

EDIT TO ADD: This statment sound familiar?
Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back
Click to expand...

moveon orders.jpg
 
Last edited:
ConfuseUs, I think honestly that you (and this entire thread) are overestimating the actual effect this vote will have in anything but the ultra-short term.
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but the Democratic front runners have this persistent problem with MoveOn: The group steadily yanks the Democratic party to the far left when the candidates know that that costs them votes with mainstream voters.
 
I would like to add something to this debate.

Those of you that keep saying that this was only an advertisement, seem to miss the point. It was an ad, only by virtue of the space that was bought for publication. In all other respects, this was an opinion piece, the same as you would find in any newspapers op-ed section.

Referring to it as just an "ad" is misdirection and fails to fully appreciate what it actually is. The Senate vote was not about an "ad." It was about refuting a political opinion, offered in the nations largest daily newspaper, made by George Sorros, the financial backer of MoveOn.

By way of the vote on the referendum, we see which Senators are in his back pocket. Bought and paid for.
 
It was more than just an ad, Anti. It demonstrated an organized effort by the Democratic party to label General Patraeus a liar (and a traitor), before the General had even presented his report to congress. The same theme was being used by Democrats before the hearing occurred, because Democratic committee leaders anticipated the contents of the report, didn't like it, and therefore attacked the General's character in an effort to destroy the importance of the report. It would have been a lot easier to label the General as an evil puppet of the administration than it is to respond to the report's findings that the surge has improved security in Iraq. MoveOn just pushed it too much and got the timing wrong. The ad may have resulted in more money for MoveOn, but it highlighted the absurd effort by the Democrats to slander General Patraeus before he'd had an opportunity to present his report to congress.

Did I mention that the Democrats had, only months earlier, confirmed General Patraeus to his present position?
 
I think most Americans realize the motivation behind this resolution.

The Iraq war is a political disaster for the republican party, and the politicians like Senator Cornyn know it. He held this editorial ad up in the air at the Petraeus/Crocker hearings to change the subject away from the tough Iraq issues they should have been focused on, so that the public might be distracted and a few political points could be scored. Cornyn introduced this "non-binding" resolution for the same reason, political posturing to distract the public.

Should senators clip editorials out of the paper every week, and bring them in to the senate to be judged?
 
Did I mention that the Democrats had, only months earlier, confirmed General Patraeus to his present position?
Click to expand...

UNANIMOUSLY!! With the full knowledge of the surge and that this was his strategy.
 
Last edited:
The whole thing was pretty pointless. The speech was written by the White House. General Petraeus simply was ordered to say what he was told too. Its not like he can disobey the order unless its a clearly unlawful act.
 
The idea that such a bill would be introduced in the Senate is anathema to what the Senate is legally supposed to be voting on. The bill wasn't worth voting for or against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top