So the Senate held debate today about Move On. The revulsive Patraeus ad, which appeared in the NYT last week and has drawn increasingly vociferous opposition from the right, was a political folly that’s going to continue to be an issue.
Ed Schultz talked about it today, reiterating it as a reason to join Move On and send them money. He calls the debate over the ad “honky tonk” and a “waste of taxpayers’ money.” He’s absolutely right on those latter points, but wrong that it’s a good reason to send them money.
Whatever this is, be it “honky tonk”, a “waste”, an offense to the 1st Amendment, it was foreseeable. It doesn’t take a genius to see that offending a uniformed soldier, whatever his political purpose or persuasion, would not help our efforts to end the war.
The “they don’t support the troops” crap had been put to rest, but with Bush’s statement today, and the debate in the Senate, it has been resurrected by a politically irresponsible stunt. As I’ve said before, there’s a number of different ways they could have approached that ad, but chose the second worst option possible (the worst would have been to call him “babykiller” in grand yippie Tantrum Left fashion).
So thanks again, Move On, for not thinking things through.
Crossposted at War Mule
PS-For those of you unfamiliar with War Mule, “That Goes Boom” is for political landmine stories, and ‘Gomer Says “Surprise”‘ is my version of GTL’s Duh!.
***
Other bloggers chime in — see MemeOrandum for the roundup
Loading ...
12:10 pm on September 21st, 2007 1
Yes, MoveOn certainly screwed the pooch on this one. It’s not just that they were criticizing a uniformed soldier, it’s that MoveOn needlessly became the story. Most people were skeptical about Patraeus’ report so they shouldn’t have felt the need to jump into the fray. Or, at least waited a couple of days before testing the water and putting out the ad.
12:58 pm on September 21st, 2007 2
There are both liberal and conservative Generals in the military — all see things through a unique set of eyes — most are patriotic men of honor, regardless of their political orientation. All are going to put the agenda of their Commander-In-Chief FIRST, as they SHOULD, and as Citizens, we need to realize it is their paid duty to honor the agenda of the President in public. Anybody who has ever served in the U.S. military knows this is the case, as it will be when the next CIC is a Democrat; most likely Senator Hillary Clinton, whose foreign policy will most likely be QUITE neoconservative based upon comments she has made and the votes she has cast since being elected to the U.S. Senate…
How many times do we have to listen to GOP/Bush talking points from Generals in uniform, then hear them state their liberal dissent once they retire before we, as a People, GET it?