Skip to main content

A few days ago, when speaking truth to power about the betrayal of David Petraeus to the soldiers and to the American people, I took a little bit of heat from the lurkers and the very small fragment of cowardly Vichyites among us who care more about what Republicans think of us than they do about facts and truth.

Now George Lakoff comes out and explains why the Betrayus frame and the ad were spot on accurate.  Via buzzflash

First, Lakoff titles the article, "Whose Betrayal?"   And he's exactly right.  The people who are betraying the American people and the soldiers in the military are not the protestors of the Iraq War, it's the proponents of the Iraq War.  It's time we said so.

Lakoff then cites Greenspan's bombshell of a book in which Greenspan, the ardent lifelong conservative Republican, has a dose of conscienceness and admits from the inside that the Iraq War is mostly about oil.  This is very important because these words are coming from a staunch Reagan and Bush Republican from the inside and carry tremendous weight.

Lakoff explains the effectiveness of the Betrayus ad.  

The ad worked brilliantly to reveal, via its framing, an essential but previously hidden truth: the Bush Administration and its active supporters have betrayed the trust of the troops and the American people.

And right he is!  Just because someone points out that David Petraeus betrays the troops does not make a person anti-military, against the soldiers, or whatever other smears lurkers and Vichyites toss his way.  The military has had many great people serve in it but it's also had its Timothy McVeighs' and Oliver Norths'.  Wearing a uniform is not a shield to hide from truth.

Here's the money paragraph from Lakoff.  

MoveOn hit a nerve. In the face of truth, the right-wing has been forced to change the subject -- away from the administration's betrayal of trust and the escalating tragedy of the occupation to of all things, an ad! To take the focus off maiming and death and the breaking of our military, they talk about etiquette. The truth has reduced them to whining: MoveOn was impolite. Rather than face the truth, they use character assassination against an organization whose three million members stand for the highest patriotic principles of this country, the first of which is a commitment to truth.

The issue is not Moveon or DFQ.  

The issue is this: Who has been betraying the trust of the American people -- including our troops -- in bringing about the American invasion of Iraq and in continuing the occupation? What were the acts of betrayal and with what consequences? And is a betrayal of trust still going on, and if so where, how, and by whom?

That's the issue to be discussed.  Add to those questions these questions?

  1.  Why did Bush ignore the pre 9/11 warnings?
  1.  Why did Bush cut counterterrorism funding in 2001?
  1.  Why was NORAD inoperative on 9/11?
  1.  Why is Osama Bin Laden still alive more than six years after 9/11?
  1.  Why is Al Qaeda operative in Iraq now but wasn't prior to 2004?
  1.  Where's the 9 billion dollars Paul Bremer lost?
  1.  Where are the 190,000 weapons David Petraeus lost?
  1.  Why did Bush want to put Bin Laden linked companies in charge of American port security?
  1.  What kind of creature reads "My Pet Goat" for 7 minutes with a blank smirk on his face when told America is under attack?
  1.  How many civilians have really been killed in Iraq under Bush?
  1.  Why is Bin Laden being ignored by Pakistan?
  1.  Why aren't we supporting the return of the democratically elected President of Pakistan, President Bhutto, instead of the Bin Laden protecting dictator General Musharaf?
  1.  Why does Saudi Arabia get a free pass for helping to fund 9/11?
  1.  Why hasn't Executive Order 13303 been plastered on the front page of every newspaper so people can see that the Iraq War is mostly about oil?
  1.  Why haven't the Saudi linked banks that fund terrorism been shut down?
  1.  Why did Iran elect a crazy man when Bush was President and a saner man when Clinton was President?

Here are some questions that need a thorough discussion.  But conservatives can't have that discussion.  Instead it's easier for them to bash Moveon.Org (whom I don't always agree with) and critics like me instead of dealing with the truth.  It's what makes them cowards.  It's also what makes them bad Americans and bad people.

UPDATE:  Here is the original link from the
Rockridge Institute.

Also I want to point out that Senator Hagel, a very conservative Republican, used stronger language than me to expose what Petraeus was doing.  And if that's not good enough, there's Admiral Fallon who called Petraeus an ass licking chicken shit.

Originally posted to davefromqueens on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:02 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  truth to power (230+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Malacandra, Ed in Montana, cdreid, Angie in WA State, cat, dwellscho, coral, jps, cassandra m, CalifSherry, acquittal, Linda Wood, DelRPCV, SVDem, Pandora, TrueBlueMajority, MontanaMaven, sphealey, rincewind, Debby, LynChi, billlaurelMD, GayHillbilly, moira977, HarveyMilk, Bob Friend, exNYinTX, Caneel, Heart of the Rockies, RubDMC, rasbobbo, Mooncat, howd, SamSinister, peace voter, boilerman10, high5, roses, JuliaAnn, retLT, itsmitch, steelman, ctsteve, enough already, splashy, antirove, Boorad, dksbook, aitchdee, hopesprings, psnyder, emmasnacker, oldjohnbrown, Dallasdoc, mrkvica, CitizenOfEarth, Sycamore, exiledfromTN, niteskolar, snakelass, hazzcon, Timbuk3, Eddie Haskell, Dood Abides, Pohjola, Brian82, Rxtr2, fritzrth, dkmich, walkshills, DMiller, Anne Hawley, WV Democrat, Silverbird, mgoltsman, kfred, Hillbilly Dem, ChaosMouse, kd texan, AlwaysDemocrat, bibble, pontechango, sawgrass727, rapala, davidincleveland, arkylib, Desert Rose, Pokerdad, ghengismom, j sundman, DianeNYS, ichibon, JanetT in MD, seesdifferent, Tonedevil, irate, Alice Venturi, jhutson, tgray, frandor55, Simplify, Brooke In Seattle, EJP in Maine, dansk47, cfk, Sharon in MD, spectre7, Moesse, babatunde, FightTheFuture, wiscmass, serrano, Doodlespook, sodalis, Rogneid, djohnutk, SignalSuzie, Flippant, flafran, reddbierd, skywriter, surferal, Bright, kovie, dus7, keefer55, buddabelly, suz in seattle, snazzzybird, danmac, tarheelblue, mjfgates, ej25, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, Califlander, Yellow Canary, seefleur, Hear Our Voices, Loonesta, IvanR, MTmofo, MJ via Chicago, nonnie9999, gatorcog, nilocjin, condoleaser, Iranaqamuk, real world chick, redglare, MO Blue, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Preston S, Hey BB, rsie, va dare, means are the ends, cherryXXX69, airmarc, FrankieB, bstotts, CharlieHipHop, Picot verde, Tempus Figits, seabos84, ammasdarling, we are 138, bigchin, FoundingFatherDAR, fisheye, Buckeye Hamburger, ibonewits, anotherdemocrat, Ken in MN, Cronesense, Wanda517, Cocker Mom, Loudoun County Dem, FWIW, ColoTim, edsbrooklyn, LillithMc, soulsurvivor, Owllwoman, chigh, Tenn Wisc Dem, drchelo, NoMoJoe, dolphin777, jayden, ca democrat, netguyct, Reno Biff, PrgrsvArchitect, MadAsHellMaddie, leonard145b, madgranny, MichiganGirl, TomP, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, MKinTN, fayeforcure, Blackacre, Baron Dave, Phil N DeBlanc, mobiusein, califdem, KansasLiberal, scooter in brooklyn, christiana, calibpatriot, Faheyman, Andrew40, Aureas2, Judge Moonbox, Greasy Grant, left my heart, Tam in CA, Cobbler, Tropical Depression, ShainZona, MantisOahu, Cheney, HoosierDeb, revelwoodie, DavidW, 4km, Chad Michaels, tabby

    Let's stand together when we are right instead of worrying about what the vocal immoral minority thinks.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:56:49 AM PDT

  •  IMO: We need another Daniel Ellsberg-- someone (13+ / 0-)

    who would make public many of the now-concealed inner working of Govt --- esp. Pentagon, Darth Cheney...

    Aloha .. .. ..

  •  recomended mostly for your list of questions (13+ / 0-)


    "a smart man knows what he doesn't know" Sister Mary Loraine Hialeah 1951

    by flafran on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:13:18 AM PDT

  •  How hard is it to figure out that (28+ / 0-)

    Petraeus answers to bush? Bush is his highest commander. It was fair to ask if Petraeus was thinking on his own or just following orders. When I hear the repubs. bawling and crying crocodile tears, I know we have hit a nerve. Its music to my ears.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:15:18 AM PDT

  •  I agree (19+ / 0-)

    The General BetrayUs advertisement was good. I have supported the advertisement since it was printed.

    The attacks are because it is a good advertisement.

    Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.

    by LWelsch on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:18:22 AM PDT

  •  Yeah (19+ / 0-)

    You can trace the right-wing parrots by who jumped on that bandwagon. That kind of point goes out in about 5,000 emails all over Washington and people like Joe Klein jump all over it with the full measure of righteous huffery and puffery.

    Jane Hamsher calls them on it over at HuffPo here. Time to call them on it. Every. Time.

    Even Elizabeth.

    ABC: The Propaganda Network

    by cat on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:20:15 AM PDT

    •  Jane Hamsher Has it right (6+ / 0-)

      you don't help the right wing out by repeating their talking points, ever

      You never enter that echo chamber as a participant

      There is nothing moral about the war and nothing immoral about speaking truth to power.

      This doesn't even come close to republican brand name calling.

      In my book despicable name calling is saying something that's a blatant untruth/lie.

      For example, the tens of thousands of young clean cut kids protesting the war Saturday Sept 15th were greeted by a few anti-war protesters with signs saying: "Hippies Smell"

      Everyone of us who are joining the republican whining about the General Betrayus ad should have been at the Sept 15th protest.

      Shame on some of us for not speaking truth to power and being proud of it EVERY time.

      Edwards puts healthcare reform on the table in a very credible way and is tough enough to make HR 676,....the ultimate goal, achievable.

      by fayeforcure on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:23:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Disagree...but you made my point (9+ / 0-)

    "The administration's betrayal of trust..." has been obfuscated by a disagreement over whether a lifetime military servant should have been called a nickname and accused of betraying the country.

    Now you can make the Nuremberg argument, that he should have refused to follow orders. But the real issue here is that the administration has lied, has funneled a great chunk of our national treasury to cronies (see the Rolling Stone article from August, a great one)and set this country up for future chaos.

    George Bush has hidden behind others his whole life. Now, whenever he has a photo op, he tries to blend into uniforms (which BTW is illegal.) Attacking Petraeus was dumb. The second ad is great, and has my contribution.

  •  I missed your previous (23+ / 0-)

    ...discussion about this issue, so I didn't see what was said.  But this?

    ...the very small fragment of cowardly Vichyites among us who care more about what Republicans think of us than they do about facts and truth.

    People can have reservations about the ad in question without being, "cowardly Vichyites," or be told that they don't care about truth or facts.    

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:22:59 AM PDT

    •  true, true but true (4+ / 0-)

      I agree that people can have reservations about the ad w/o being cowardly Vichyites.

      I also agree that they can have reservations about the ad while caring about truth or facts.

      but I think it's also true that what I said applies to SOME people who criticized the ad.

      I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

      by davefromqueens on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:26:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent point (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RubDMC, BarbinMD, Desert Rose, snazzzybird

      That is one of the tactics the Republicans that he is complaining of have used so well over the last six years.  It's the same thing the Republicans do when they call people who speak out against the war traitors. And it's bullshit.  One can disagree or hold a different opinion without being a wholesale sellout.  

    •  BarbinMD is right, and we have been defamed... (0+ / 0-)

      by this diary, by Feldman's diary and others that conflate opposition to this ad with being in league with the right wing.

      This is shameful.

      Some of the others who are irate at the ad are Sen. John Kerry, Frank Rich of the NYTimes and Elizabeth Dole.  And based on previous polls, between 35 and 60% of readers on Dailykos feel the ad was inappropriate.

      But here's a video of a few people who I'm sure would have loved the headline.  

  •  Don't hold (3+ / 0-)

    your breath waiting for answers from the 28%ers crazies. All media events are staged and the "press" conferences are a joke.
    They'll only talk about what they want or have huge lapses of memory and the invertebrates in Congress are letting them get away with it.

    Blame God and you'll get away with anything.

    by langerdang on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:33:20 AM PDT

  •  "An ass-kissing little chickenshit" (17+ / 0-)

    "I hate people like that."

    Spoken by that well-known far-left extremist, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the US Central Command.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    by Buckeye Hamburger on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:50:46 AM PDT

  •  We only have to look at our military . (3+ / 0-)

    In their bases in Iraq, Faux News is piped in 24/7. The military uses brainwashing techniques to take people in off the streets and turn them into soldiers. I am always suspect when a General speaks. He has been taught from the time he was young to follow orders. Suddenly he has brass on his chest and its time to think for himself? He lost that ability long ago. Thats not to say that all of them are like that. But unless we question, how will we know?

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:54:24 AM PDT

  •  Struck a nerve. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, snazzzybird, Judge Moonbox

    The ad worked because it reminded all of us of the lack of oversight this Iraq effort has had in the past and is the reason we are where we are.
    Republicans demanding that some Democrats renounce the ad should be asked if they will also renounce Swift Boat Veterans defamation of Kerry, Corkers 'call me' racist ads against Harold Ford and whisper campaigns against their own candidates like McCain.  

    Tired of white haired, old white men ruining the world. (Bald ones too!)

    by Stop Pandering on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 04:55:01 AM PDT

  •  Who cares (14+ / 0-)

    what Lakoff says?

    The ad was stupid and wrong. It played right into warmongers' hands by focusing on the general whom Bush is hiding behind.

    Worse, it employed rightwing-style traitor-talk. When you use the word "betrayal" in that context, you know what you're doing. A betrayal of trust? Please. You're calling his patriotism into question.

    All in the service of a mediocre pun.

    •  one more thing (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cardinal, MisterOpus1, Sanuk, bugscuffle

      Out here in the real world, where progressives care more about telling the truth than closing ranks around moveon, people are laughing at the ad. Seriously. I was telling a group of apolitical liberals about it and they were marveling at the sheer stupidity of it.

      But hey, moveon is a great group, an essential group, and I'll keep giving them money. I just hope they spend it more wisely in the future.

      •  "YOU COWARDLY VICHYITE!" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Frank, TastyCurry

        I also like the diarist's hypocritical attempt to stifle dissent by calling any progressive who disagrees with him or MoveOn's tactics as 'a Vichyite.'

        •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

          You're allowed to be Vichy.  You just have to be prepared for the consequences of that choice.  Dave simply makes it clear that he thinks they are in error, and calls them out for it.  

          Exactly where does he say he doesn't want them to speak?  He just points out the effect of what he sees as ignorant actions.

    •  I agree that the ad was stupid (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HollywoodOz, david mizner, bugscuffle

      but I disagree that it was wrong.  Calling out Petraeus for what he is (an Administration puppet) is not wrong, but how they went about it with their cute little play on words was borderline childish.  It could have been a much more effective ad without the silliness.

      Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

      by MisterOpus1 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:35:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MisterOpus1, TastyCurry

        might be too strong a word, but I get uncomfy when we get into a patriotism-contest with rightwingers.

        •  True (0+ / 0-)

          they tend to win those pissing contests every time.....

          Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

          by MisterOpus1 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:46:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's About Accountability...Not Patriotism (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The MoveOn ad was a question....."Has Patraeus betrayed the American people in his willingness in being a Bush lackey?'

          It is a relevant question, and the answer is obvious. Patraeus was being a Bush propagandist.

          Thanks for MoveOn for pointing it out.

          'It's deja vu all over again'-Yogi Berra

          by frandor55 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:27:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not the message, it's the ambiguity (0+ / 0-)

            MoveOn's intended point was spot-on, I don't think many progressives will dispute that.

            The problem is that they attempted to communicate that point in an ambiguous way, a strategy that allows any competent opponent to spin their statement to serve their own ends.

            Again, you can't just make an ambiguous statement and hope the ideas that correspond to it are going to be magically transferred. That's not how language works, and that's not a strategy for convincing others who operate outside or on the fringes of your own ideology.

        •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

          "I get uncomfy when we get into a patriotism-contest with rightwingers"

          Why? They are traitors who dragged their country into a pointless war for oil. I'd put my "patriotism" up against theirs any day.

      •  yes, Petraeus is an incompetent goon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But vague and incendiary rhetoric, at best, only throws red meat to the true believers, and at worst, as in this case, alienates everyone else and calls our credibility into question.

        Now is the time for reason and clarity. As John Kerry's obliteration of McCain on yesterday's MTP demonstrated, rational thinking and lucid concepts make mincemeat of ambiguous rhetoric. This isn't the time to be engaging in personal attacks that distract from the issues and give the opposition an opportunity to bring the debate down to a stalemate of vague talking points. We shouldn't be listening to propagandists and think tanks looking to test their dissertations on political linguistics. We need to be looking to what works and what has always worked. We need to look at leaders like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Leaders whose discursive strategy can be boiled down to one simple maxim:

        "Speak the truth with courage and conviction."

        If you do that, the people will listen and any who oppose you will defame themselves by their own action.

  •  I just wish we could use Lakoff's wisdom (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CalifSherry, boofdah, snazzzybird

    in a better way.

    Why didn't he write this when the MoveOn controversy first broke? Why did it take so long to get this framing out to the grassroots? Why isn't Lakoff on more mainstream media with his message? Why don't Democratic leaders rely on his framing advice more?

    Lakoff's advice is always great, but if it's late and largely ignored by the most visible Democrats, it unfortunately does not do a lot of good in helping the Dems frame the issue their way.

    At this point, the GOP has framed the entire controversy their way and lured Dems into apologizing for MoveOn and condemning them.

    We lost the framing battle.

    •  Plenty of people here and (9+ / 0-)

      on the left side of the aisle thought the ad was just fine.  Lakoff is only explaining why was more than fine, but excellent at the meta-level.  While that wouldn't be immediately apparent to many DEMs, they can't sit around and wait for Lakoff or anyone else to bless a liberal communication.  Excellent, fine or even weak frames can work but not as long as there as so many DEM wusses always ready to run away and/or denounce anything the rightwing doesn't like.  That's a big problem that framing can do nothing to fix.

      And I had many arguments with many people last week about the MoveOn ad.  I failed to convince a single one of them that it was even an acceptable ad, much less that it was IMHO a good ad.  So, there you have it -- DEMs want good framing but it scares the shit out of them when they see it.  

      What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

      by Marie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:52:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I plan to donate $100 to moveon this week (11+ / 0-)

    I have not donated to moveon since the last election cycle. Because of this ad and the newer ad campaign, I plan to donate $100 this week to

    I urge all of you to support

    Their development and implementation of the online phone contact system to try and get out the vote in key districts was instrumental in electing Democrats last Fall.

    Even Baron Hill, IN-09, who cannot bring himself to admit it, knows ()*()*& well he is back in the House because I and a bunch of other volunteers spent our own phone bill time to call thousands and thousands of voters and urge them vote Democratic.

    I feel certain that program will be even more sophisticated and ready for the next cycle. I hope my dollars will help it unsure that, and support all of moveon's work.

    The real patriots are those who support the Constitution, the Bill or Rights, and do not send troops into illegal wars for profit and geo-engineering of a region of the globe for oil, and once that has turned into a debacle, do not keep them there.

  •  Bhutto was not democratically elected President (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GOTV, swissffun, Judge Moonbox

    Musharraf seized power from the democratically elected Prime Minister named Nawaz Sharif, the man who just not allowed to return to the country.   The president under Sharif was named Rafiq Tarar, who stayed in office until 2001, when Musharraf appoointed himself to that post.  Musharraf came to power in 1999.

    Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister twice, the second time from 1993 to 1996, but was dismissed from office on corruption charges.  Thus Musharraf in no way displaced Bhutto, who still faces prosecution on corruption charges should she return to Pakistan.

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

    by teacherken on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:03:40 AM PDT

  •  Petraeus's only real asset is his cool name (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    (Besides looking good on the teebee and being, in the immortal words of Admiral Fallon, an ass-kissing little chickenshit.)

    Petraeus even has subliminal religious connnotations, so important to the Christianist loons: The ancient pun: "Upon this rock [Peter = petra, rock] I will build my church."

    So, it's important to take that asset away from him. If weren't a political general, that wouldn't be fair play, but as his actions have shown, he's a loyal Bushie.

    Anyone who isn't outraged isn't paying attention.

    by lambertstrether on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:07:42 AM PDT

    •  absolutely--don't forget that dogwhistle (0+ / 0-)

      among other things, the ad diminished the power of that subliminal religious connotation.

      no one will be able to see that name for the rest of the war without thinking Betray Us.

      And I heard it was his own troops that called him that first and MoveOn just borrowewd the term.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:38:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The ad was very effective... (5+ / 0-)

    Moveon puts this out there.  The Dem candidates and talking heads then take the high road, tut-tuting about the new incivility while discussing the merits of the central argument (Betrayus). The argument gets moved from Bush surge propaganda to whether or not the Bushies are traitors.

    That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me?

    by sommervr on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:14:35 AM PDT

  • needs (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynChi, MO Blue, Judge Moonbox

    a new ad saying, "now that we have your attention..."
    and then a list of all your questions. except maybe number 16, which i'm not sure i get.

    Keep Religion in Church

    by titotitotito on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:23 AM PDT

  •  Right on! many thanks!!! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, boofdah
  •  Good capture on Lakeoff, BUT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, Judge Moonbox

    the problem I see is the military-bashing message by the Noise Machine has been quite effectively played ad nauseum, and it's done a terrific job once again.  I agree we hit a nerve, and I also agree with the message against this Administration and its puppets (including Petraeus), but what truly pisses me off to no avail is the complete effectiveness of the Republican Noise Machine in all its glory able to push back with force.

    Not only can they make the Dems. cower with an initial punch, but they can frighten them out of their boots with a counterpunch as well.  We have little to nothing as strong as this, at least not yet.

    Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

    by MisterOpus1 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:32:20 AM PDT

  •  Love this! Love Lakoff! (5+ / 0-)

    Were the right wing nut whiners worried about etiquette when they ran the Swift Boat Veterans ads in 2004?  

    I'm not saying that the ad was a retaliation for the SBV ads (especially since the SBV ads were full of filthy lies.)  But boy, do the right wing nutters hate it when we play their game.  

    "Overcome anger by love, evil by good, the greedy by generosity, and the liar by truth." - Buddha

    by madame defarge on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:32:43 AM PDT

  •  The issue was never the main message (4+ / 0-)

    of the ad.  The issue was the language, "General Betray Us".   I agree with the message; I just do not like the name calling.  And to say those of us who disagreed with the language are Vichy Democrats is really inaccurate.  I didn't realize disagreeing with one ad , while still being on the Moveon list, and liking their grassroots organizing meant that we are now suddenly disloyal to the cause.

    •  Lakoff's point is that (5+ / 0-)

      the language is the proper and powerful frame and the message is second.

      Hint: good, effective reframing will almost always be initially uncomfortable.  To reframe is to smash through a previous frame which are mental constructs that require a dose of emotion to change.

      What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

      by Marie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:57:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But this is up for debate (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Frank, cardinal, standingup

        I don't doubt that Lakoff is an intelligent guy, but the fact of the matter is that there are a good number of linguists and philosophers of language out there who will argue that, simply, THIS IS NOT HOW LANGUAGE WORKS.

        Language is far more chaotic than this, and the notion that 'the frame comes first', in my view, is a reckless strategy, one that opens you up to a devastating attack from the right-wing spin machine, as we're seeing here.

        •  Oh, dear, we wouldn't want to do (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashy, antirove

          anything that would upset the GOP and make them attack us, now would we?  Let's just be real nice to them ad maybe they will be nice to us?  

          In case you haven't noticed, the GOP attacks anything that isn't GOP?  Sometimes they win and sometimes they don't.  And the DEMs rarely win because they don't bother to correctly frame much of anything in an attempt to win.  They think winning is all about the GOP failing to succeed with their agenda and attacks.

          What you're missing about Lakoff and the concept of frames (or schema, a much more descriptive term IMHO), is that it's not limited to language.  It's how we take in the world.  Without schema seeing and hearing as we know those activities wouldn't exist.  Schema help us organize our world and facilitates our ability to see, hear and think.

          Lakoff's work didn't grow out of linguistics or philosophy of language.  It's in the field of psychology and psychobiology, specifically cognitive and learning theories.  It's a very complex area of study and research and much of it get lost when Lakoff translates it into more easily understood  concepts with practical applications to politics.  Ever ask yourself why DEMs win on the issues and lose elections?  One answer to that is the hierarchy of frames and the GOPs successful exploitation of them.    

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:46:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You have to understand that the rules are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies, TastyCurry

        different for Democrats than for Republicans.  They can call Kerry a traitor and get away with it, because the MSM narrative is that the GOP loves the military and the military loves them back.  

        Since the narrative in the MSM is that Democrats are anti-military, any time someone on the Left says anything against someone in the military or something that could be construed however wrongly that it is against the military, the MSM will play it up.  Like:

        Durbin remarks about goings on in Guantanamo being like Nazis
        Kerry's botched joke
        Move on General Betray Us
        I'm sure there are others

        Meanwhile, Boehner can say troop deaths are just a small price to pay and the MSM say -- oh, he didn't mean it that way.  No such benefit of the doubt was granted to Kerry.

        This is the reality of the MSM bias.  And there isn't a damned thing we can do about it, other than working on the root problem -- a perception that Democrats are anti-military.  We are doing that like with orgs like or having vets run for congress.  There is also an increase in donations from military people to democrats (from 23% in '02 to 40% in '07).  That should be played up.

        The whole thing about this is that is not part of the Democratic party.  That is lucky for us.  I didn't like the language.  The fact that it has turned into a week long story only shows media bias that is not going away any time soon.  The core principle -- that I did not like the language -- remains the same.

        •  Don't mistake the MSM (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          for the citizens of this country.  Remember the Schiavo mess?  The GOP was united on that one.  GWB flew back to DC from his vacation to sign that special legislation.  Harry Reid voted for it.  And few opposing voices were ever seen on the TV.  So, how did it happen that 70% of the public rejected the GOP position?  It's because they hold a meta-frame in their brains that says, matters of life and death are personal and they don't want the government involved beyond whatever must be litigated in a state court.  (Now if only someone could articulate the abortion issue to exploit that same meta-frame; although I think it is what's operational for the majority today does support a woman's right to make such a decision.)

          The military since Vietnam has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.  That combined with the creepy fetish this country has developed for the military is what gives the GOP this power.  That cannot be attacked head on.  But what "Betray Us" does is it points out that the GOP military is incompetent and lies to cover up that incompetence. That's something that most Americans kind of see, and articulating that in a simple, easy to understand phrase like Betray Us has resonance power for them. Their impulse would be to say, "Shit, yes."  The GOP noise machine can stifle that response for some, make them doubt their perception, but that number would be far less if they also heard a large number of DEMs simply saying the MoveOn spoke the truth. With the GOP trashing and a large portion of the DEMs saying that it was wrong and not helpful, it optimized the number that stifled their impulse.  No wonder I'm not hopeful that the Democratic Party has the capacity to do all the hard work that must be done in the next few years if we're not to destroy ourselves.

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:31:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Dems battered spouse syndrome (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, Judge Moonbox

    they will pass all opportunities to speak the truth, they are shocked by the truth!

    We are heading nowhere fast with leaders like these!  Now they are discussing the add against Giuliani!  Move on is made up of "wackos" who dare speak the truth once in a while.  They never mention when they sponsored Al Gore, when nobody was listening to him, warning about the war, and the loss of our civil rights!

    Nobody seems to be listening now... Kerry's stance is laughable, if there is a bad General, who goes with his ambition vs the truth, it is bad to criticize him.  Come on Senator! Wake up from your slumber. Where have you been for the past 10 years.  We do not respect Generals who speak the truth, we demote them or force them to resign. Any wonder that Petraeus is playing ball?

  •  On CNN's Late Edition yesterday (8+ / 0-)

    there was a discussion about the ad.

    Bill Schneider made the point that the the long term harm from the ad would land on the Republicans as the controversy forced GOPers to rally around Bush and continue to back an unpopular war.

    I thought it was a good point.

    I do not always agree with MoveOn (or anybody, really), but I do see the importance in selective confrontation. It can and does move the discussion.

    The RW noise machine will attack us no matter what, so we might as well intentional about we feed them. I think there was some careful long-term thought that went into this ad, but in the end it is just another blip in the news cycle.

  •  Pakistan: we ARE supporting Bhutto (0+ / 0-)

    You need to read between the lines.  The deal that was trying to be struck between Musharraf and Bhutto was U.S. backed.

  •  I don't think we've seen the last of Petraeus (4+ / 0-)

    I concur with the MoveOn ad.  Petraus's betrayal was a dereliction of his responsibility to be candid with Congress. The consequences of that betrayal is more subjective. Now to my point...

    There's been a fair amount of discussion (e.g., here) over his possible political ambitions, especially towards the presidency.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he had political ambitions but I couldn't reconcile why he would jeopardize those ambitions by becoming the commander in Iraq and being tagged with its probable negative outcomes. He is an intelligent man; he must have done the risk calculations.

    Unless his political ambitions were local instead of national, especially if he wanted to represent a red state area. Bush has already set the defensive frame that if Iraq is a huge mess after we leave, he'll blame Democrats in Congress.

    I expect someday we'll see Petraeus running for Congress. If he adopts the BushCo framing about the fall of Iraq, then he will have validated the MoveOn ad.  But if he actually takes accountability for his contributions to the failure in Iraq, including his misplaced optimism in his testimony towards Congress, then I would change my opinion about him. Problem is, his recent Congressional testimony was clearly intended to dampen any criticism of his past mistakes. I don't expect this  zebra to change his stripes.

    •  This... (0+ / 0-)

      I wouldn't be surprised if he had political ambitions but I couldn't reconcile why he would jeopardize those ambitions by becoming the commander in Iraq and being tagged with its probable negative outcomes. He is an intelligent man; he must have done the risk calculations.

      Well, think of it this way. No one had ever heard of Petraeus before the Iraq disaster and it was likely to stay that way if nothing changed (think of if you or I wanted to run for president... Petraeus had some stature in the military, but not all that much).

      With this, though, Petraeus becomes a national brand name recognizable to most of the educated population. Petraeus may have been shooting to become the next Colin Powell or a right-wing Wes Clark type figure. Hey, he figures, if this Iraq thing goes well or at least well enough, I come out looking like a hero. If it doesn't, people will likely blame the president. Maybe I get blamed too, but is that worse than sitting here in obscurity the rest of my life?

      Basically, I think Petraeus (correctly) thought that no matter what happens, this was likely his only opportunity to get into the Big Leagues. So, he parroted whatever the White House wanted to hear, adopted their "strategies", and became a major player, at least for now. What happens in the future is anyone's guess, but for him the worst than can happen is what was already going on for him.

  •  Can't recommend this because... (7+ / 0-)'re tossing in some fairly ridiculous claims in with the reasonable ones.

    Allow me to amend the list:

      1.  Why did Bush ignore the pre 9/11 warnings?

      2.  Why did Bush cut counterterrorism funding in 2001?

      4.  Why is Osama Bin Laden still alive more than six years after 9/11?

      5.  Why is Al Qaeda operative in Iraq now but wasn't prior to 2004?

      6.  Where's the 9 billion dollars Paul Bremer lost?

      7.  Where are the 190,000 weapons David Petraeus lost?

      9.  What kind of creature reads "My Pet Goat" for 7 minutes with a blank smirk stare on his face when told America is under attack?

    [ there was no smirking.  he was completely out of his depth. -d]

     10.  How many civilians have really been killed in Iraq under Bush?

    ...The above claims are the ones that definitely ought to be in the list.  Now for a few that I think might be slightly off-the-mark...

     11.  Why is Bin Laden being ignored by Pakistan?  [ It's not accurate to use "Pakistan" as a whole in this sentence.  There are segments of the Pakistani government that are certainly not ignoring him.  There are other segments that are.  You're way oversimplifying. -d ]

     12.  Why aren't we supporting the return of the democratically elected President of Pakistan, President Bhutto, instead of the Bin Laden protecting dictator General Musharaf?
    [ Again, way oversimplifying. ]

     15.  Why haven't the Saudi linked banks that fund terrorism been shut down?

    [ Because one can't just shut down a bank.  One of the few areas in which we've been marginally effective is in cutting off funding sources; imperfect, sure, but we're not just ignoring the issue like you imply here. ]

    ... And now for the ones that really hurt your argument.

      3.  Why was NORAD inoperative on 9/11?
    [ Are you trying to imply that the US was complicit in the attacks, or what? ]

      8.  Why did Bush want to put Bin Laden linked companies in charge of American port security?
    [ That's a stupid comment.  First, "in charge of American port security"??  No, they were going to be put in charge of port operations at some specific major ports.  You make it sound like the government wasn't still going to be involved in security, and furthermore that it involved all ports.  And "Bin Laden Linked"???  Dubai?  They're about as Bin Laden linked as Saddam.  You can find a Bin Laden link to ANY middle-eastern country if you look hard enough.

     13.  Why does Saudi Arabia get a free pass for helping to fund 9/11?
    [ There you go again, acting like Saudi Arabia, as a nation, handed a million bucks to Al Qaeda to help them pull off 9/11.  That's ludicrous.  There's a real point here, which is that the Saudi royal family is way too cozy with Bush and therefore haven't endured much in the way of investigations into what they could have / should have done.  But you can't just go claiming that the nation of Saudi Arabia aided and abetted in the attacks. ]

     14.  Why hasn't Executive Order 13303 been plastered on the front page of every newspaper so people can see that the Iraq War is mostly about oil?
    [ Why focus on that one document?  You could repeat that exact phrase about at least 15 other similar bombshell documents.  Downing street, for one.  They don't do anything to public opinion.  Not that this isn't a good point, just that it's missing the forest for a tree. ]

     16.  Why did Iran elect a crazy man when Bush was President and a saner man when Clinton was President?

    [ I guess that's a fairly reasonable point, but the question itself doesn't mean much unless you actually know the answer. ]

    OK, that's my $0.02.

    •  Good points but (0+ / 0-)

      I think you're adding nuance to what were meant to a concise litany of complaints.  Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are certainly more complicated issues than would be implied, but the allegation that General Mahmoud Ahmad wired money to Mohammed Atta is a major fucking story.  Why in the world did we attack Iraq when there was no such connection?  Can you imagine if this report existed for Saddam Hussein?  We'd hear about it every day from the Republicans.

      Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

      by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:25:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  agree totally (0+ / 0-)

      it's important to get these ignored points out there, and i think the best way is to frame the concrete ones in a way that the media sees the story-line very clearly. having holes, or distracting nuances in some of the points, as you highlighted, leaves the arguments open to being swatted down easily by the wingers.

      keep it focused, simple and solid.avoid anything that can be dismissed as conspiracy theory, anti-american (NORAD), and incorrect (Bhutto)

  •  What Greenwald said (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, Judge Moonbox

    Good commentary:

    It's no secret that the Right does things just as bad, if not far worse, and Greenwald chronicles such moments.  The problem that I see is effectively demonstrating what the Right does JUST AS WELL AS THEY DO SO AGAINST US.  Does the media truly have a grasp on what the Right has said and done in the past?  Hell no, because we have not effectively made that comparison.  We have to continue creating a machine that one day will match their media monster.

    Lawrence, KS - From ashes to immortality

    by MisterOpus1 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:40:47 AM PDT

  •  Did Lakoff have an advanced (0+ / 0-)

    copy of the Grennspan book?

    Had Lakoff seen the ad in advanced, would he have accurately predicted the ensuing shitstorm?

    If it's about "framing" and "narrative" and all that stuff supersmart cats like Lakoffare all about, the ad does not have been to be so great idea..

  •  Who you calling Vichyites? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank, Radiowalla

    Hmmm, I can only wonder what masterstroke of framing someone will call your use of this term to describe those who took issue with the ad.  Personally, I thought the ad was fairly harmless and made a good point--one that is purposefully ignored by the GOP--but does this kind of my way/highway mentality get us any farther down the road?

    This type of criticism is, frankly, more in tune with the conservative blogs and commentators.

    •  yes, agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "Vichites" undermines the author's  claim.  Porgressive's  strength is in the substance of our arguments, which are sound and will tend to prove progressives correct in the long term.

      The disease we fight is the cynical manipulation of the electorate by the right wing noise machine. I thought the "betrayus" was too clever and off target. Too much like the name-calling right. (I thought of the pun myself, and said, nah....  too distracting).

      Broadly, I  like the work move on has done, because many times moveon frames issues where the framing is edgy and does not rely on clever rhymes. This is easy to do, because the  curent Chief Executive is, well, such a bad one.

      anyway, we should,  ahem, move on from this one.... and focus on getting our congress critters on board with the plan.

      I don't understand why we cannot just all get along.

      by Blue State 68 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:07:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a vile use of the term (0+ / 0-)

      and it turned me off completely.

      My new mantra: "Don't buy shit from China."

      by Radiowalla on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:22:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I plan to think good thoughts (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Schmendrick, chigh, DavidW

    Sorry, MoveOn, I'm a bit tapped out at the moment.

    The Capitol police gave me a $100 haircut. While I was waiting for my haircut, I saw an IVAW guy get his haircut money from some lady from ANSWER, so after I sprung myself, I handed over $100 to the ANSWER lady in hopes that somebody else could also afford a proper trim. That's how it works, people.

    I hope to be up in DC again tomorrow. Code Pink is going to be handing out Pink Slips to pro-war congress critters. My critter is Jo Ann Davis. She has breast cancer. Again. Considering my wife died of cancer, I think I'm uniquely qualified to hand Jo Ann her Pink Slip, along with a nice "Get Well" card. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Also, Code Pink is going to get in my wallet for another Benjamin for giving me a ride to the 7-11 after my half-night in gaol. I want the ladies to know that I'm good for more than bad free coffee.

    After that, I have contributions to Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan (sorry, Markos), and maybe some efforts for Shaun O'Donnell. First, I need to meet the guy. After that, MoveOn, because I like so many of the things that they have done, and especially for outing Betray Us for giving Rusty Trombones to the Bush regime. Priorities, people.

  •  Is it me...? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MisterOpus1, Judge Moonbox

    Or was MoveOn's questionable "Betrayal" pun a bloody compliment compared to what Tom Lantos had the balls to say to Petraeus to his face....

  •  Ad dumb becaus it enabled them to change subject (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank, bugscuffle

    This whole diary misses the point entirely. Because this ad gave the right a talking point which had nothing to do with the merits of the case it was misguided. All that said, we shouldn't get too excited about it. Most of the excitement was on the right, it's not on the radar of 90% of the country a majority of whom as the polls indicate were in any case predisposed to believe that Petraeus was going to paint an over rosy picture. It will soon be forgotten, if it hasn't been already.  

  •  Sorry, this is all too typical (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank, scrutinizer, arodb

    You start with the self-congratulatory "truth to power" trope (when in fact nothing in the world is safer than posting such sentiments here) and then needlessly defame those who disagree with the doubly-insulting "cowardly Vichyites".

    Self-congratulation and insults: this is what passes for reasoned discussion these days in the world of the blogosphere.

  •  Hit a nerve (8+ / 0-)

    Correct. We need to keep hitting that nerve. Conservative outrage is directly tied to voluminous mounds of demographic survey. Anytime they respond with manufactured outrage, it's a dead giveaway that our message has immediate appeal.

    •  Turn-about is fair play (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrblifil, splashy, Tam in CA

      The ad, IMHO, was the right thing to do.

      It fought fire with fire. We have been called unpatriotic and far worse (nazis, kkk, terrorist supporters to name but a few) for years.

      By no means am I suggesting that false words be used, but there is a factual basis for calling "betrayal" given the lies and actions of the last 6 years.

      The right howled because they don't like their tactics used back at them (despite moveon being more genteel than the R's toward us).

      The other place where the ad hits home: it has created a new word: "Betrayus" has become part of the lexicon. Like it or hate it, the association has been made and many will think of it when the general (who has been less than honest per other press and diaries previously referenced) is named.

      Score one for moveon.

      "You can count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else." -- Winston Churchill

      by bleeding heart on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:24:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stay tuned for Moveon's Giuliani ad in Iowa (10+ / 0-)

    An ad there will detail how Giuliani left the Iraqi Study Group because he wanted to raise money elsewhere.
    Should come out this week.

  •  Some good questions, but... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, pontechango, tgray, Judge Moonbox

    It's "The Pet Goat", not "My Pet Goat".

    You can have a blank look on your face, or a smirk, but a "blank smirk" is a contradiction in terms. Bush often smirks, but when he was told about the attack on the World Trade Center, he had a blank look on his face.

    45% of Americans for impeachment of George Bush, 54% for Dick Cheney. ARG Poll

    by dconrad on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:00:52 AM PDT

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, boofdah

    Why is Osama Bin Laden still alive more than six years after 9/11?

    Because he provides a necessary foil around which the neocons can rally their base and the more gullible amongst us.

    What kind of creature reads "My Pet Goat" for 7 minutes with a blank smirk on his face when told America is under attack?

    He wasn't reading it - he is clearly staring off into space, in disbelief that Cheney's plan was about to be implemented.

    Where are the 190,000 weapons David Petraeus lost?

    It has been reported that some have turned up in Italy and Chechnya.

    "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." -- Winston Churchill

    by Spud1 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:04:38 AM PDT

  •  Dragging Greenspan in makes this (0+ / 0-)

    pronouncement suspect.  The invasion of Iraq was no more about oil than it was about nuclear weapons, other than our own.  If we want the oil, we should just buy it.  Even the neocon rationale that Iran has the intent to control the Persian Gulf and the flow of oil makes no sense.  Just as the earlier argument that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the availability of oil because he wanted to control the Persian Gulf.  Even control of the Persian Gulf is not the issue, since our navy is now sitting there and, effectively in control.

    No, the real issue is a permanent U.S. military footprint in the Middle East or, more properly, on the southern edge of Asia where the REAL competitors for power, Russia and China, sit.  Meanwhile, Russia and China are making friends and influencing people in Africa and the Americas.

    Perhaps one of the most negative consequences of the commitment to rule by the elite is that the elite have to think that other people are stupid.  This is the prejudice that inevitably leads to their downfall.

    Greenspan is not to be trusted.

  •  Strongly recommended (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, splashy, boofdah

    I think I might email this diary to a few people, too.  Well done, davefromqueens.

    Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

    by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:19:33 AM PDT

  •  The real reason GOP went after MoveON: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Seminole Democrat
    A blue voice calling from the deep red

    by SemDem on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:19:51 AM PDT

  •  Why should Dems "disavow" MoveOn message? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, annrose, splashy, pontechango

    Republicans (I don't know about press) have been demanding that Democrats disavow the MoveOn statement about Petraeus/BetrayUs. But you don't hear any demands for Republicans to disavow the latest atrocious statement du jour by Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the swarm of Right Wing liars and idiots.

    Republicans don't get asked that kind of question.

    "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described." *

    by dratman on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:20:02 AM PDT

  •  Well, MoveOn can speak for themselves (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen, annrose, splashy, pontechango, DavidW

    I don't know if I agree with the ad or not.
    What I don't agree with is the demand that MoveOn be criticized for exercising their free speech.
    They said nothing criminal, nothing defamatory---they made a point with sharp language, which is perfectly acceptable.

  •  Petraeus is just pissed because (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this hurts his Presidential chances.
    It's bad enough to have a gay-sounding latin name, but nobody will vote for a "BetrayUS" candidate.

  •  What a bunch of phonies in the GOP! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, boofdah

    And GOP spokespeople like Laura Ingraham, Fox news talking heads etc, so outraged at the robust criticism of Petraeus.  After the Iraq Study Group produced its report, Murdoch's NY Post had the headline Surrender Monkeys and showed a photoshopped image of James Baker and Lee Hamilton as monkeys.  The NY Post offers hundreds of these kinds of insults.  And the USA is so outraged that R. Murdoch is allowed to buy the Wall Street Journal, no problem.

  •  The common phrase being tossed around... (4+ / 0-)

    I hear that the betray us ad "Went too far". Yep. That's what it did all right, it just "went too far".
    WTF?? Do these people have any logic at all? Invading a sovereign nation based on a lie, killing hundreds of thousands of people, staying in the middle of a civil war, ect....I guess that's not going too far. Well, I certainly never heard any of the admistration or their enablers say it.

    I thought the ad was very true and quite appropriate. This is not the time to worry about niceties, we need to make people realize that Iraq is not the rosey picture bush and Petraeus make it out to be.

    Great diary...thanks! Btw, has anyone seen the Bush ad from MoveOn? It's great... factual, clear, and straight to the point! They are doing a fine job. :D

    "If I can dream of a better land, where all my brothers walk hand in hand, tell me why can't my dream come true". - Elvis Presley

    by WI Dem on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:28:51 AM PDT

  •  What about the Betrayer in Chief? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, boofdah, FishOutofWater

    If you collude with high officials of another nation to illegally enter the embassy of a third nation to steal and forge documents in order to mislead your own citizens into an illegal war, could there be any higher form of betrayal?

  •  I recommend this with an exclamation point (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, splashy, pontechango, boofdah

    THIS is the truth about the Moveon ad, not the lies spread by Republicans and their lackeys in the news media. One question, however, why haven't we heard Republicans speak with equal vigor about the statements of Petraeus' boss, Adm. William Fallon, which were far more like a personal attack on Petraeus than anything Moveon said?
    And shouldn't Republicans and their allies be apologizing to and Democrats in general for spreading their garbage and disinformation about the Moveon ad instead of demanding that Democrats repudiate  

  •  You have to admit it has a certain ring to it (4+ / 0-)

    Now, everytime I hear Petraeus, I think "Betrayus", the way everytime I see or hear about David Vitter, have images of Depends diapers. I'm guessing that millions of Americans do, too, after all the free publicity that those idiot Repubs gave it last week, when it would have otherwise quickly fallen off everyone's radar screen by now. Betrayus Betrayus Betrayus!

    I'm sure that the good general is a fine tactician and strategist in matters military, and has made the most of an impossible situation militarily. I don't doubt his physical courage and military abilities as a soldier or leader or scholar. No one does. What I do doubt is his honesty in reporting the true nature of our situation in Iraq from a military and political point of view, and how desperate and really impossible they are, and how pointless it is to throw yet more troop lives and billions of dollars at a hopeless and pointless situation that we cannot fix.

    So yeah, in terms of our troops' and country's actual interests and needs, he's betrayed us.

  •  MoveOn can't have those discussions either (0+ / 0-)

    Lakoff doesn't care about civility or rational analysis. He's willing to stoop to a low level to win, but I'm not. And I think most progressive-leaning persons in this country would agree that the tactics of MoveOn and Lakoff's approval of them were despicable.

    As can be seen by the diarist's first paragraph, dissent is intolerable to his orthodox-oriented world view. Doesn't this seem an eerie adoption of the right wing's playbook, which we have continually and rightly maligned in the past? I guess this diarist didn't get the memo that we're supposed to be better--and act better.

    •  Accountability and justice require consciousness (0+ / 0-)

      As much as you would like to believe that Democrats can rise up and walk over the din of the body politic, it ain't gonna happen.  It's time that they started fighting the lies by speaking the plain truth.

      And frankly, "orthodox-oriented world view", is just plain silly.  If you have a disagreement, say it.  Don't complain that you're not being tolerated when you don't even express your own opinions.

      Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

      by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:37:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Petraeus' motivations are not self-evident (0+ / 0-)

        And I think that fact can be demonstrated in the fact that, on here, we have progressives who think he's a scheming lackey and others that think he's a dangerously devout ideologue.

        But this is an important point. The intents of another can never really be known, this is a basic limiting law of intersubjective discourse, so you can't offer something like 'Petraeus is a Traitor' as an apodictic truth.

        You can effectively argue for it, as has been done in this diary, but even then, this assertion doesn't necessarily follow from the facts and, thus, it's fundamentally ambiguous and vulnerable to a counterattack.

        It's one thing to attack the content of their own rhetoric, as I have lately in arguing that the slogan 'Return on Success' implies that 'the troops are failing' and suggests Bush's disdain for lower ranking servicemen. It's also one thing to lay out the facts and interpret them.

        But it's quite another to make insinuations about character ala 'Petraeus or Betray-Us?', removed from an immediate factual framework. This is just ambiguous, an ambiguity clearly amplified by the fact that MoveOn made the further blunder of phrasing it as a question. Again, it's not the rhetoric that frames the facts, it's the facts that frame the rhetoric. Language is empty, but it is not given content by a simple interchangeable consciousness. Language is always informed by a SURROUNDING network of consciousnesses.

        •  Some good points there (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Absolutely in agreement with you about the surrounding network of consciousness.  And, actually, I think such surrounding networks are what eliminate the laying out of facts to the public.  The corporate media have done a very poor job at communicating the facts about how the Iraq war was misrepresented to the American public and how it is still being misrepresented by the Bush Administration.  It is precisely because of the "surrounding network of (un)consciousness" that we must rely on catchy buzzwords that self-propagate and generate controversy.  That's why it is critical that the controversy be harnessed and utilized to lay out the facts.  No matter what happens, you can bet that the Republicans and the right wing media will viciously attack our character.

          Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

          by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:58:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  but we can't lay out the facts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            When those secondary efforts are never publicized, which is why we need to spend our airtime and ad space on communicating facts, not empty-yet-provocative rhetoric (or in the case of the MoveOn ad, provocative rhetoric with a tiny-text paragraph of facts that will be ignored by anyone who dismisses the initial statement, i.e. most people).

            Propaganda is a privilege of those who control the means of communication. We don't. When we do, then we can effectively focus our efforts on the sort of sloganeering that Republicans thrive on.

            But until then, this rhetoric floats in and out of the public consciousness without determinate content, which is what allows the Republicans to 'win' every debate of this sort.

    •  Power doesn't work that way (9+ / 0-)

      What I learned from a personal power course is that there is a 1-10 scale of passivity to aggression in any personal dynamic interaction.  If your opponent is at the 1-4 range, that is considered passive.  If your opponent is in the 7-10 range, that is aggressive.  The ideal place to be is 5-7, which is assertive.  But you must adjust your level to suit your opponent's to be most effective.  If your opponent is passive, take it down a notch so you don't come off as pushy.  If your opponent is aggressive, take it up a notch so you don't look like a pushover.  
      But when people are truly aggressive, you MUST push back just as aggressively.  If you do not meet their level, they will stomp all over you.  So, the first thing to do with a bunch of thugs is to hit them as hard as you can at first.  Then, step back to level 7.  
      It's the shoot first, ask questions later method.  
      Now, to Democrats, who feel comfortable at 5-6 with compromise and collaboration, this looks mean.  It isn't mean.  It is standing your ground and getting what you want.  
      Sadly, there is no other way.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:06:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gen. Petraeus' Credibility Is a Fair Question.... (0+ / 0-)

      I'm just wondering....Do you believe in fair play? Because after all, what you're arguing in your comment is that Republicans can make a man's "credibility" and "character" the crucial factor in persuading voters to support Bush's policies. But you clearly dont' believe that Democrats should get the same opportunity to make a man's "credibility" and "character" the crucial factor in persuading voters to not support Bush's policies! It isn't a matter of being nice you know. It's a matter of fair play, equal opportunity.

      Bush made Gen. Petraeus' "credibility" the issue when Bush first presented the surge and put Petraeus in charge of it; and I'll remind you that he did that after several other Generals advised him NOT to do it. Bush made Petraeus' character the central issue the entire Spring and Summer when he proposed this surge and put Petraeus out front as the deciding factor in whether or not Bush would support it after Petraeus' report. Bush made Petraeus' credibility the sole focus by repeatedly  invoking Petraeus' report in September to give Bush cover and Republicans cover throughout the summer as more troops died.

      MoveOn did the very same thing: They made Petraeus' credibility the deciding factor. And, should they not deserve to question Gen. Petraeus' credibility or character? To criticize Democrats for taking an equal turn at evaluating a General's credibility or character--after Republicans have already done so--seems to me to be a serious weakness in your arguments.

  •  IMPEACH (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, OpherGopher

    Its time for MoveOn to lead the drive to impeach the VP and President.

  •  I disagree with Lakoff. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    space, TastyCurry, Crisitunity

    And somehow I don't think that if I were to call him "Mr. Fuckoff" that it would help my case. Because it's rude and not the point of my disagreement with him at all.

    Yours in Vichy,

    Help! Mitt Romney's hair is hypnotizing me!

    by Frank on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:42:43 AM PDT

    •  You're analogy misses the point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Betrayal is the core theme of the MoveOn ad.  I don't really think that fucking off, is what you want to focus on.  Try

      Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

      by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:51:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point was.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ..the distraction of the rudeness, even if it fits into the theme or not.

        It was just an option for distraction, immediately seized by the rightwing noise machine. Even if you think that calling people traitors is ok, it's still not a good idea, since you give others a stick to beat you with. Yes, they will try to do that anyway, but the ad would have been better off avoiding the childish namecalling and giving the rightwing an easy opportunity for distraction.

        It's not about putting them on the defense, as Lakoff seems to think, it's about what the public sees. Because that's what you're trying to do, reach the public.

        Help! Mitt Romney's hair is hypnotizing me!

        by Frank on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:58:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but neither "traitor" nor "treason" were (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority, TracieLynn, annrose

          used in the ad.  Those words have precise meanings as defined in the Constitution.  The ad used the word "betray", as in a betrayal of the public trust.  That is not rude, nor over the top.  It is, in fact, a very common word in politics.

          Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

          by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:01:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps that was the intention (0+ / 0-)

            However, I think that if you use the word 'betray' in reference to a general, people will not think about public trust, but more in the direction of 'traitor'.

            Help! Mitt Romney's hair is hypnotizing me!

            by Frank on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:04:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the content of the ad (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              makes no such case for treason.  It does, however, make a clear and accurate case for the betrayal of the public trust.

              Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

              by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:08:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  only because that is the couinterframe (0+ / 0-)

              Republicans have successfully put out there.  sadly too many Dems have lapped up that vomit.

              obviously anyone who accepts the Repug counterframe that betray=traitor is going to have a far more negative view of the ad.

              except for the people who believe that Bush et al actually are traitors, but that's a more complicated story.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:46:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

          The MoveOn ad was tone deaf and gave the right wing ammo to deflect the conversation off of Bush's War and on to the hateful anti-war folks.  

          My new mantra: "Don't buy shit from China."

          by Radiowalla on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:29:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No. "Fuckoff" is non-communicative. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, pontechango

      Betraying communicates -- and in this case it's the truth.

    •  It's not about being 'rude' (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, TracieLynn

      As I said in my reply to "buzzermaster" it is a matter of Gen. Petraeus' credibility. Bush made Petraeus' credibility the central issue throughout the spring and summer to give Bush cover for his surge; it gave other Republicans cover as well. They all repeatedly invoked Petraeu's September Report and repeatedly said everyone should wait until September to decide if the surge had worked.

      Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Petraeus Report, a veritable feast of pageantry befitting ceasar, was spun to the country as "surge a success."

      But wait: When did we all agree that Gen. David Petraeus was a saint?! I don't recall ever thinking Petraeus was "credible" or had good "character" just because Bush decreed it to be so. Do you?

      Basically the question of Petraeus' character and credibility was brought up by Bush; Moveon simply followed with that theme, and asked the question:

      "Petraeus....or betray us?"

      Now, I've studied the constitution quite a bit over the past 5 decades, and in my memory, I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution where it reads that Republicans have the right to exploit the credibility of a man to sell their policies; but Democrats don't have the right to question that same man's credibility to reject those policies.

      Gen. David Petraeus should certainly be able to have his credibility questioned if he is to take on the job of being the lead proponent of his own military counter-insurgency 'surge' tactic. Why do you feel like you need to protect him from criticism, or challenges to his credibility? From my reading of him, his own superior certainly has questioned his 'credibility'; Admiral Fallon, CentCom commander called Petraeus an 'ass kissing little chickenshit.'

      You aren't criticizing Petraeus' superior, just MoveOn. Why is that?

  •  Paying the Price of Loyalty (5+ / 0-)

    Ask Paul O'Neil whether the price he paid from the Bush administration for not maintaining loyalty to Bush by supporting disasterous policies was preferable to the price he would have paid to betray the his own conscience and the American people.

    Loyalty is the only thing that matters to Bush and his administration. Nothing else matters. It's time the people who've signed on to his lies and propoganda faced the music. There comes a time when truth and the security of the nation must be chosen over loyalty and ambition.

    Those who have made that choice including Richard Clark, O'Neil, and a host of military generals all lost their positions of prestige and favor of BushCo. to their everylasting credit, honor and dignity. They are on the just side of history.

  •  The best defense: (10+ / 0-)

    "After morphing Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden, trotting out Willie Horton, using racist innuendo against Harold Ford and continually lying about John Kerry's service record, the Republicans whine about this MoveOn ad?  Please.  Let's not even go there.  The citations would take all day."

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:58:03 AM PDT

    •  That's right. Impugning an honorable man (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, buddabelly

      is reserved specifically in the Constitution of the United States for "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth".

      That amendment (the Catch 22nd) was ratified in Karl Rove's apartment after a card game where McCain had to sell his soul to Bush after the 2000 election.

      George Orwell is banging on his coffin lid and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

      by snafubar on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:34:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks. Tip 'n' Rec. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, annrose, OpherGopher


    For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.

    --Mark Twain

    by redglare on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:11:01 AM PDT

  •  The Moveon add was brilliant (3+ / 0-)

    i laugh at the right wingers that thing this somehow "hurts" liberals or Moveon itself.

  •  MoveOn was right. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jps, TracieLynn, SignalSuzie

    The general has absolutely zero credibility and can be assumed to be deceiving us because the Administration he works for has absolutely zero credibility and has a whole history of deceiving us.

  •  But the problem is Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ......instead of using MoveOn to emphasize the betrayal of trust, and spinning of facts of Admi and Petreus--they join in with the GOP--to say Petreus is credible which he is not.

    It is like Gen Powell--yes a should be respectable and principled person--but when he went over the UN and make himself be used to LIE for the administration--maybe unknowest to him--he betrayed people's trust and he should be called for it.

    No one is immuned to be called for their betrayal of trust if they do so.

    Here we have again Democrats cowardly unable to defend the TRUTH.

    That is all we ask.  Defend the TRUTH.

    If there is really progress in Iraq--I would expect liberals and MoveOn to admit it that there is progress.  But if it is obvious--that facts are being fudged--say so no matter whether it is a 5 star general fudging the facts.

    35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in Matt 25: 35;

    by timber on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:12:37 AM PDT

  •  Squealings of Stuck Pigs . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's the noise that the rethugs and right-wingnuts are making over a spot-on ad about betrayal. And it's music to any progressives' ears. Sure, the ad generated heat. But it's been the fear of heat that has kept us silenced.

    No more. It's time to MoveOn.

  •  One minor tweak would have made it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, pontechango, LeftOverAmerica

    devastatingly effective:

    Put Bush's picture above the "Betray Us" language.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:17:52 AM PDT

  •  MoveOn the scapegoat de jour (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The wing nuts can't complain about the liberal media because it isn't liberal and the right wing owns most of it in the first place.

    They can't attack protesters of the Iraq war because that is nearly 75% of the country. There are no hippies really anymore, so MoveOn is the newest whipping boy of the right wing.

    Moreover, MoveOn and other liberal groups have been gaining power and influence while being bashed by washington insider hacks like David Broder and Joe Klein.

    There are no communists anymore so the right wing demonizes liberalism so that the conservatives can dismantle all our entitlements and our modern notions of government that harken back to the progressive era.

  •  Lakoff is off his rocker (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, TastyCurry, arodb

    You don't attack a 4-star general for "betrayal" unless  you have goods.

    Has Petraeus lost credibility by engaging in partisan political battles?  Yes.

    Does he have a personal interest in seeing HIS counter-insurgency strategy win?   Yes.

    Has he let the WH compromise his integrity with the on-again, off-again plans for his report and testimony?  Yes.

    But all that doesn't add up to "betrayal".  

    Now, if Lakoff wants to make an argument that the Bush administration has betrayed America, he has my support, but he better come forward with more ammo than MoveOn brought to argue that Petraeus is responsible for all the WH mendacity.

    Here are the key questions.  Would MoveOn accuse any other military officer whose name doesn't rhyme with "betray us" of betrayal?  Doubtful.  Would they accuse Petraeus of betrayal if his name didn't rhyme with "betray us"?  Doubtful.  That tells you all you need to know about the merits of that argument.

    •  Spinning for Bush IS a betrayal to America (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In case you (amazingly) haven't noticed, Petaeus has lost considerable credibility by his perfomance last week.  That is amply shown by all the "day after" editorials saying as much.  His whole performance was and is a betrayal of America because he is enbabling the perpetrators of this disasterous war.  Newspapers all over America are actually saying the same thing as the MoveOn ad, but in more polite terms.  The bloodshed piled upon American profiteering that is Iraq today is what is disgusting, not a play on words that emphatically tells the truth.  The prim cry of how "distasteful" the MoveOn ad was is a sham, and even funny, in a sad way.

      Also, note that many, if not most, of the of the more credible Generals have left the service.

      try habitat restoration - good for you, good for all

      by jps on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:22:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In case you haven't noticed (0+ / 0-)

        you are employing faulty logic.  That something happened after the MoveOn ad doesn't mean it was caused by it.

        Even before the MoveOn ad, it was being widely discussed that the Surge was intended to achieve political goals and not merely a military action for its own sake.  MoveOn didn't cause that.  If anything, they distracted from that, by giving the GOP something with which they could change the subject.

        I'm glad that MoveOn challenged the WH spin.  I'm glad they took out an ad.  I just wished they used a little sound judgment in deciding on the copy.

        •  You misread me - perhaps deliberately (0+ / 0-)

          I'm talking about a confluence of opinion, not cause & effect.

          As another poster mentioned, the MoveOn ad posed a question, will Petraeus betray us or not?  He did, and the editors duly noted this, in their own way.

          Successful advertising is often provocative.  I think this was successful.  The word betrayal will reverberate around Petraeus' name for a long time.

          try habitat restoration - good for you, good for all

          by jps on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:10:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Republicans accused Max Cleland of (0+ / 0-)

      Betraying the Constitution.He left bothlegs and an arm in Vietnam so its alright to say baseless things about a Democrat whose a war hero and look what they did to Kerry also but when the facts are plain to see about a Republican shill who is a mouthpiece of the Bushies its handsoff don't anyone dare say anything about them.

      •  The Republicans are scumbags when (0+ / 0-)

        they accuse Cleland and Kerry of being less than honorable.  Is that what you want the Democrats to become?

        I'm not opposed to criticizing Petraeus.  But how hard is it to grasp that a term like "betrayal" is highly, highly inflammatory?  

        •  I knew someone who used to say (0+ / 0-)

          "If you fight fair in a knife fight you die" as long as the Republicans fight dirty they will win its time to start using thier weapons against them and when they cry about it make sure everyone knows they did those things first.

          •  He hit me first (0+ / 0-)

            Sounds like a fight between 4-year-olds.

            I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to understand that you can stand up to the GOP without engaging in the same, scummy tactics.  It really is possible.

      •  MoveON Ad (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If Steve Colbert or Jon Stewart did this no problem.  It is important to make fun of the monster and to use satire.  But words and images they provoke are very powerful motivators.  We want people and Congress to act.  We want people to support the removal of troops from Iraq and if the President doesn't, he should be impeached. But, instead, we have people attacking MoveOn.  We need to be more careful in the words we use and keep our goal in mind. If we don't like "Swiftboating" we shouldn't do it.  Stand up to it but lets be civil but direct. Yes, the General and President Bush betrayed us.  How do you get to the point in 27 words, 7 seconds with 3 points?  That is the "sound bite" and "elevator speech" we all need to "win hearts and minds". Name calling is not going to be a "positive motivator". Only the "truth will set us free."

  •  What was the point of the MoveOn ad? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonK Seattle, DigDug, arodb

    If your answer is "preach to the converted" then "mission accomplished", although I'd argue it could have been done much cheaper with a few diaries here at dKos.

    But if the point was to communicate with people -- not wingnuts -- who were looking forward to the Petraeus testimony as a source of objective evaluation of Iraq, then I'd say MoveOn failed miserably.

    Defenders of MoveOn forget that the point of communication is to communicate.  It doesn't matter how right you are.  If you fail to communicate, you fail.

    •  Did you actually read it? (0+ / 0-)

      General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."

      Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

      Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

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

      Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

      by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:48:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know, did I? (0+ / 0-)

        Once again, you miss the point.  From the standpoint of the one doing the communicating -- in this case, MoveOn -- it is their job to communicate the message.  It is not the reader's job to understand it.

        They are selling a product (i.e. their position on the war) to consumers (i.e. the American people).

        When commercial for a product bombs, you don't hear Ad execs desperately pleading, "Did you even see the ad?"

        In fact, I do (generally) agree with the substance of what MoveOn was saying.  I just don't think they got the most bang for the buck.

        •  1st Ad execs want to know if you REMEMBER the ad (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loquatrix, buddabelly

          and from that criterion, MoveOn succeeded magnificently.

          Clark/Dodd/Edwards/Gore/Obama/Richardson 08!

          by pontechango on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:11:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep, that's the point of the ad (3+ / 0-)

            and the point that all the hand-wringers are missing.

            MoveOn's ad isn't about selling anything to anybody.  It's about standing up and punching BushCo in the face.

            Other people become emboldened to stand up themselves, when they see a handful of leaders standing up to the bully.  That's what MoveOn's job is, in the world.  Standing up to the bully, showing that it can be done.

            •  General Petraeus AD of MoveOn (0+ / 0-)

              I am all for free speech and standing up to the powers that be.  I am all for "speaking truth to power".  But if the goal is to bring more pressure on Bush and Congress to stop the war, attacking the testimony and the character of the General is not going to get us to peace.  It is one thing for the Daily Show or the Colbert Report to do this thing because they are left leaning.  Yes the reasoning
              of not using character assissination I think is a sound one.  We need more every day folks to join in the struggle to stop the war and bring about truth justice and reconciliton.  You don't get their by calling people evil and bad names.

            •  This couldn't be more wrong (0+ / 0-)

              MoveOn's ad isn't about selling anything to anybody.

              Untruer words were never spoken.  MoveOn is selling an idea. The idea is that the surge is a failure and the U.S. needs to change course. The more Americans who buy into that idea, the more likely we actually will change course.

              Did the ad efficiently sell that idea?  No, it distracted from it.

          •  No, they want you to remember the product (0+ / 0-)

            All those clever superbowl ads where nobody remembers what they are for are generally considered failures.

    •  Actually, the more I think about motivation (3+ / 0-)

      the more I think it was two fold--

      Get the facts out that Petraeus is lying about the facts.

      Call Petraeus out for lying.

      They did both in a powerful manner. Too powerful, for some here, obviously.

      I would only add that when lives are at stake--Iraqi lives (over a million at last count here ) and US lives--being over the top when calling out a lying General seems to me to be the least of our problems.

      "When you deal with stupidity, you begin to understand the concept of infinity." -- Gustave Flaubert

      by DelicateMonster on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:51:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right. These Rethugs love childish arguments (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loquatrix, DelicateMonster

        Somehow I think an Army general can deal with a little name calling. 'Sticks and stones...' , etc.

        Rethugs love the simpleton logic. How many time have they called Dems "Cowards, defeatists, Alcay'da sympathizers, and more".

        I'm just amazed that Dems seems impotent to turn these accusations back around on the Rethugs.

        Good for MoveOn. I wish the congress Dems would show as much spine.

    •  The purpose: indelible meme (0+ / 0-)

      Mission accomplished.

      try habitat restoration - good for you, good for all

      by jps on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:24:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It kills any thought of a Petraeus Presidency. (0+ / 0-)

      Which evidently Peter P. really really wants.
      Works for me.
      It cemented the thought that the good General might just be less than completely honest in his testimony. As we now know to be the case.

      It opened America and the O-window to the idea of dishonesty. And it did that, big time.

      Unfortunately, it gave the Rethugs something to hide behind.

      TFYQA - think For Yourself, Question Authority

      by Niniane on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:49:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And if Gen BetrayUs was not shilling for Bush... (0+ / 0-)

    why did he go on so many network TV talk shows preaching "War gumbo". Testifying before Congress should have been sufficient. And who booked all those TV appearances? I'd bet the farm it was WH staff.

    Watch for a new medal of FreeDumb to get awarded to the good general in the near future. And whatever else Bush promised him s payback.

    Chess players, you have a software chess clock, don't you?

    by CitizenOfEarth on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 08:47:51 AM PDT

  •  My Children (0+ / 0-)

    and students try to change the subject when they are wrong.  Good job....

  •  Uh. (0+ / 0-)

    In fact, the question of whether Petraeus has acted in such a way to deserve the appellation "General Betrayus" is somewhat of a matter of opinion. It would be rather silly to pretend was bringing some new truth to light in calling him that, though silliness seems to be Lakoff's strong suit. ("'General Betrayus!' Brilliant framing!")

    While I'm sure there was other text in the ad, I doubt anyone read it. The truth, as it were, is that it merely provided a distraction. It was indeed "juvenile" in the words of Frank Rich and served no useful purpose. For example, I don't see a lot of discussion of your sixteen questions going on, not that your "my pet goat" thing is likely to spark a lot of fruitful debate.

    Of course, this is coming from someone who spends his last paragraph explaining just what it is that makes the political opposition bad people and bad Americans. I honestly wonder how people like this manage to function normally in society, walking around thinking that about a third of the people he meets are bad people, cowards, traitors, and so on and so forth. Outside of the five or so percent of Americans who're nutty enough to think this way, not a lot find these sorts of lectures on truth and courage very appealing, whether coming from the author or Bill O'Reilly.

    A reminder: Painting Obama as "Republican-lite" is not going to get your guy through the primary.

    by Vincenzo Giambatista on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:09:56 AM PDT

  •  The MoveOn ad was a victory (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MontanaMaven, flumptytail

    because people are still talking about it.

    It doesn't matter whether they're saying complimentary things about it, or doing the usual Republican manufactured outrage thing.

    The important thing is, the corporate mainstream media is helping the anti-war movement by continuing to discuss whether Americans have been betrayed.

    I'm so sick and tired of people around here whining that it's BAD every time we manage to fling a handful of sand into Goliath's eye.  Don't these people understand there is no time left for making nice??

    •  Agree. This is what revolution looks like folks. (0+ / 0-)

      This is the first volley fired and there will be more.  It is so exciting to finally have a really good debate about substance and style in the mainstream media. pushed the Overton window.
      To the barricades.
      Cut to the revolution.

      "It is not be cause things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult." Seneca

      by MontanaMaven on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:17:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How Do We Defeat Terrorists? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That's the real question and one you missed by focusing on the specifics of the history so closely.  Those of us who don't support the Iraq War are not defeatists or capitulators.  We believe this misbegotten war is making the situation worse.  It is the wrong strategy and using the wrong tactics.  Open warfare, the abusive use of force, only heats up the conflict.  It doesn't make us safer.  It only makes the world more dangerous.

    We are calling for an entirely different strategy to confront terrorists and defuse terrorism.  Intelligence is necessary, in all senses of that word, and those of us who are antiwar believe that there is precious little to be had in the halls of power today.  

    Read Jessica Stern, Louise Richardson, John Robb, people who have studied modern terrorism for solutions.  What they call for are justice and development, in my reading.  I keep on writing diaries about these people and their work but they generate little commentary or discussion.  Not complaining, just stating the facts.  If we want to be effective in ending the Iraq War and defeating the terrorists who definitely want to kill us, we should start discussing effective strategies and tactics for the day when the Bush/Cheney junta is gone.  In fact, it is my contention that one necessity to end this spate of world terrorism will be the impeachment of the perpetrators of this unholy war, remanding them to an international war crimes tribunal, and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission between the US and Iraqi people.

    "Asked about the biggest threat to their groups' survival, a militant says that 'free secular education for all' leading to an 'increase in the literacy rate' is the gravest threat to the survival of the jihadi groups in Pakistan."
    Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill
    by Jessica Stern  (NY: HarperCollins, 2003), page 230

    Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at

    by gmoke on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 09:22:18 AM PDT

  •  "Snivelling Dems" (6+ / 0-)

    Someone upthread talked about whining repugs and snivelling dems.  Rude, I think.  But also true.

    If you believe that the war was started on lies, that the Bush mafia cares little about America's interests, only it's own skin, that the war has been a HUGE profiteering opportunity for the Bush maria's cronies, that facts on the ground are being covered up, that American and Iraqi lives are being wasted to save the egos and asses of corrupt old men in the Bush mafia, that the US constitution is being effectively gutted, ...--and I DO so believe!--then MoveOn spoke for you.

    More bluntly than most Democrats do, yes.  Even rudely.  But this is in the context of all Democrats being called "traitors" (Ann Coulter), the party of death (what's-his-name over at The Corner), DKos being called a hate site (O'Reilly), etc.  Bush himself has made a habit of questioning the patriotic bona fides of anybody who opposed his murderous policies.

    If Petraeus enables Bush, he is betraying his country and the soldiers for whom he is responsible.  Damned if I'll let anyone bully me into pussyfooting around it.  Screw the polite formula of respecting the distinguished, patriotic and brave soldier while gently, politely and ineffectively opposing his viewpoint--always with submission and deference!!

    For years we Democrats have tried to play this asinine game of following repug frames.  That's crap.  Bush is a coward who evaded the draft.  So is Cheney.  So is most of the leadership in the Bush mafia.  The whole administration IS a mafia.  If you believe that, then avoiding saying so clearly just allows them to get away with it that much longer!

    I support MoveOn.  In fact, I just supported it in one way that counts--just gave them some more money!

  •  YOU'RE ALL WRONG!! (every one of you) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jps, pontechango, fayeforcure

    Sorry to shout but with almost 300 comments and counting, it's hard to be heard above the din.  Now...

    All of you are wrong - based on reading every headline and a bunch of diaries (give me a break here), because the ad doesn't say the General betrayed us.  It was carefully worded to ask the big "OR", not that he did.  As well, the text is carefully drawn to say that IF General Patraeus does certain things, then he will be betraying the troops he commands, and the country he serves.  That Patraeus made certain choices is his own doing, and MoveOn never said he has/had betrayed anyone.

    Is it inflammatory?  You bet.  It's supposed to be.  It's designed to make you and me examine and analyze what politicians - and make no mistake, you don't become the head of an army without being a politician (see Ike, Patton, MacArthur, and even Washington), are doing vs. what they say they're doing.  And there's a stark difference in this case.

    If any of the Democrats had any balls backbone, they'd stand up to the reactionaries and demand that they READ THE ENTIRE AD before they comment.  It's especially discouraging that none of the Democratic talking heads having once asked a right winger to quote where the ad explicitly says Patraeus betrayed anyone.

    footnote: [Even worse, they completely dropped the ball on Boehner, in the same news cycle, called the death of American soldiers "trivial."]

  •  The Republicans accused Max Cleland of Betraying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MontanaMaven, fayeforcure

    The Constitution,A War Hero who left his Arm and both legs in Vietnam war.So where was the outrage by the Republican Party then.I thank that Moveon should place ads showing what the republicans said about Max,John Kerry and maybe the racial campain against Maccain by Bush and say they started it.

  •  The Substance isn't the Problem; Bad Ads Are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Look, I don't think anyone here disagrees with the message in the ad (and it is an ad, don't kid yourself).  No, my problem is that it is incredibly stupid and childish.  Frankly, it makes progressives and liberals look like 4th graders.

    So, let's be clear, I like the intent, HATE the message.  I mean, Betrayus???, are you effing serious?  Good lord.

    •  How long before such comments as yours (0+ / 0-)

      become labeled as spoken by "collaborators?" Especially in light of

      "the very small fragment of cowardly Vichyites among us "

      Looking for a universe that doesn't fall apart in 2 days.

      by Doodad on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:39:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The definition of childish is taking from people (0+ / 0-)

      who trust you.  David Korten talks about this in "The Great Turning".  "Imperial Consciousness" is about a 6 or 7 year old behavior level.  It's a "I didn't intend to hurt anybody" or "everybody else does it" immature way of looking at the world.  Betrayers are narcissists.  Those who have only achieved "imperial consciousness"  recognize that sucking up to authority figures gets you rewards like improving one's position or avoid being caught.  Those who move on in maturity develop "social consciousness.  They are motivated by more  selfless concern and an internalized ethical code . has shown a maturity lacking in the "me, me, me" narcissistic imperial autistic atmosphere of Washington.  Finally we have people willing to fight with every tool in their arsenal instead of keeping the damn powder dry.    

      "It is not be cause things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult." Seneca

      by MontanaMaven on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:31:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ad hominem wordplay is juvenile, sophomoric n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  This is a great post (0+ / 0-)

    It's refreshing to read somebody who has the accuity to pierce the mouldy shrouds BushCo has wrapped around the truth.

    Ah, yes,  911 ... Where were we when that discussion was on the table?  Military spending was half what it is now, we were in a recession after a stock market meltdown, half the country was still talking about how Bush and Cheney stole the election and then ... whoosh!  Along comes Osama.

    The so-called, "Global War On Terror" IS Terrorism!

    by november3rd on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:27:02 AM PDT

  •  "Mr. Framing" nails his thumb to the floor (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nobody read the ad. With that heading, why would they?

    That's not exactly true. People who already agreed with it read the ad.

    Republican opportunists probably read the ad, looking for even more spicy quotes.

    Media types may have read the ad to flesh out their "Dems Behaving Badly" narratives -- ready-made a conflict story -- saving them from having to construct that many more painstaking minutes of fact-filled, policy-oriented Petreaus Hearing reports. (I frankly don't recall any evidence that MSM dug into the ad below headline level ... but it could have happened.)

    Lakoff, the framing guru, rhapsodizes about the facts in the ad, and the argument in the ad. Oh, so wonderful! He carelessly overlooked the inconvenient fact that the "Betray Us" lead was where everybody that mattered stopped reading, stopped hearing the argument, stopped processing the claim, and simply confirmed their preconceptions: "Democrats hate the army, they're soft on security, arrogant, and rude to boot" (except for Republican operatives, who exclaimed "Gold! Pure GOLD!").

    Mr. Framing should have known better.

    We must defeat them over there, or they'll follow us home ... hide under our beds ... and grab us by the ankles when we get up to pee.

    by RonK Seattle on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:36:49 AM PDT

  •  The Point... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The point here is that the ad was simply unnecessary.  Clinton and Obama only reiterated those claims made by several hours later without a little play on words.  Democrats just didn't need that heat brought on the party.  

  •  Is there a Congressional committee doing hearings (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Silverbird, fayeforcure

    about this issue:

    Where's the 9 billion dollars Paul Bremer lost?

    Pre-Bush, people used to get mad about the Federal Government throwing away billions of dollars. Where's the outrage?

  •  That's a rather harsh characterization of any (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arodb, ronlib

    who dare to disagree with your assessment.  Ever hear of Frank Rich?  Is he a "lurker" or "cowardly Vichyite?"  Hardly.  His point was, simply, that the MoveOn ad distracted and diverted the debate from the merits of the Iraq war to the merits of their ad.  While I personally have not decided where to come down on this, I will say that I find your broadbrush condemnation offensive.  Do you think Frank Rich is the enemy?

    We Changed The Course! Now we must hold their feet to the fire.

    by hcc in VA on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:03:25 PM PDT

    •  Again to reiterate (0+ / 0-)

      and you can scroll upthread

      Frank Rich is a great patriot and is not a cowardly Vichyite.

      Most of the people who disagree with me about this ad are NOT cowardly Vichyites.

      NOte my words "very small fragment."  

      I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

      by davefromqueens on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How embarrasing for us. (0+ / 0-)

    An inconvenient truth that we are being betrayed by our own political leadership and their syncophants makes headlines.  This country is afraid of the truth that we are the world's major sponsor of terrorists.  

    We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. -- William Faulkner --

    by Silverbird on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:13:22 PM PDT

  •  And besides the terrorists we sponsor, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    our military is occupying a country that did not do anything to us.  But what an outcry over calling Petraus "Betrayus."  No one like the ugly truth.

    We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. -- William Faulkner --

    by Silverbird on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:15:44 PM PDT

  •  The personal name play was stupid (0+ / 0-)

    and juvenile, and quite probably counter productive with Independents.  It has nothing to do with opposing the war or being a Progressive Democrat.  And the sophomoric name calling of adults who might disagree with your brilliant analysis proves the point that you don't have to be thoughtful or over the age of 14 to post on these pages.  Unfortunately.  

  •  Lakoff? Again? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Separate from the whole MoveOn issue, could we stop treating this guy like he is some sort of sage?

    Lakoff takes basic Ad Agency PR tactics, puts a veneer of (mildly sexist) political theory over them and everyone thinks he is a genius.  

    We can stop giving him play and money at any time and simply hire a PR firm, because that is all he is offering, PR advice.  Replace the word "Framing" with "Branding" and his advice is 50 yr old ad stuff.

    It is sad that his ideas seem so new and revolutionary around here.  Politics is, and has always been "sales" and "branding."  Changing the terms should not get one so much attention.

    The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

    by TastyCurry on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:31:24 PM PDT

  •  I agree with Frank Rich (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, arodb

    I am as liberal and progressive as anybody. I like what Move On does. But in this case, Frank Rich is right. The ad was immature and not at all helpful. They need to grow up a little.

    •  Democrats have been fighting like mature adults (0+ / 0-)

      while the Republicans have been fighting like immature brats an bullies so who has won the Whitehouse and congress and the Courts since Carter,1994 Congress and the Supreme Court.Now that the Democrats have won Congress they are so Bullied by the 'Immature'Republicans they do nothing or worst they attack thier own do you think the Republican would attack the Swift Boat Group or Saxby Chambliss for what He said about Max Cleland hell no they would be out there with Ann defending thier side.

  •  Being "Right" can be wrong. My dad taught (0+ / 0-)

    me that their are many a person dead from traffic accidents whose last words were "by damn I had the right of way." Many a person fired or never again promoted at work for proving they were right and their boss was wrong.
    We're in a POLITICAL  battle for our Constitution, damn
    it, if not to prevent Armageddon.

    It matters not one damn whit whether the ad was right or not, just as it didn't matter that Al Gore did NOT say he invented the internet.

    Perception trumps reality, especially with a hostile media. The ad was a tactical error. Period. It WILL cost votes, in '08. Let's just hope it's not too many.

    Btw, a/h. this comment is uncalled for b/s:

    and the very small fragment of cowardly Vichyites among us

    I think you should apologize for that. don't you?

    •  no (0+ / 0-)

      because it's true.

      And I think by the term "very small fragment" I am not talking about many people.

      I'll be succinct.  You can disagree with's ad here and not be a cowardly Vichyite.

      I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

      by davefromqueens on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 03:07:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great article and very important.... (0+ / 0-)

    Go to for more!

Thumb, anna, RobertInWisconsin, Ed in Montana, cdreid, Angie in WA State, Susan S, dwellscho, coral, Aeolus, jps, Lawdog, cassandra m, samizdat, vivacia, teacherken, Sparhawk, CalifSherry, Subterranean, Linda Wood, mini mum, TaraIst, jimG, Gearhead, Pandora, TrueBlueMajority, MontanaMaven, theboz, stumpy, Paul Rosenberg, gorlim, JTML, sphealey, karlpk, rincewind, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, CleverNickName, SanJoseLady, wintersnowman, gaff98, GayHillbilly, RickD, TX Unmuzzled, figdish, HarveyMilk, BenGoshi, exNYinTX, angelmom, redtravelmaster, Heart of the Rockies, memberofthejury, RubDMC, rasbobbo, 88kathy, DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou, Naturegal, wonkydonkey, annrose, dionys1, understandinglife, Loquatrix, DaleA, ask, pdrap, peace voter, boilerman10, MisterOpus1, roses, itsmitch, exconservative, BruinKid, Nate Roberts, thingamabob, evansb2, fumie, ctsteve, enough already, splashy, Cedwyn, antirove, Alna Dem, Boorad, dksbook, kosophile, hopesprings, dejavu, psnyder, annan, danthrax, oldjohnbrown, Dallasdoc, CitizenOfEarth, missliberties, Sycamore, november3rd, madame defarge, rflowers, exiledfromTN, niteskolar, joan reports, Chirons apprentice, attydave, defluxion10, snakelass, Calidrissp, HollywoodOz, Timbuk3, Eddie Haskell, sommervr, Pohjola, Brian82, Rxtr2, fritzrth, cevad, dkmich, walkshills, zdefender, AllisonInSeattle, nasarius, WV Democrat, Silverbird, mgoltsman, smartgo, bobnbob, Hillbilly Dem, DrReason, bradspangler, jcinkc, kd texan, snowbird42, bibble, pontechango, Shapeshifter, kevsterwj, Oleboy, Skennet Boch, davidincleveland, arkylib, Slgalt, trueblue illinois, lcs, SisTwo, ghengismom, ichibon, LarisaW, alaprst, seesdifferent, Independent Musings, b tex, OpherGopher, KnotIookin, jhutson, panicbean, tgray, frandor55, flamingo, The Third Man, barbwire, Brooke In Seattle, EJP in Maine, FutureNow, boofdah, Mz Kleen, lennysfo, owlbear1, GUGA, IL dac, Sharon in MD, elesares, thered1, GreyHawk, jcitybone, Moesse, libbie, illyia, babatunde, jane123, kingsbridge77, Marcus Junius Brutus, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, FightTheFuture, wiscmass, serrano, Doodlespook, Silence is Complicity, Cory Bantic, Rogneid, LisainNYC, Arsenic, Dania Audax, flafran, reddbierd, itsadryheat, forbodyandmind, SoulCatcher, martini, Coherent Viewpoint, kovie, dus7, suz in seattle, snazzzybird, danmac, Icy, irishwitch, kraant, tarheelblue, MuffledDrum, ej25, testvet6778, tung sol, BlueInARedState, Califlander, Themistoclea, seefleur, Loonesta, theyrereal, withthelidoff, dangangry, Doughnutman, armadill, souldrift, DarkestHour, MJ via Chicago, wild hair, nonnie9999, gatorcog, vlc, nilocjin, everhopeful, condoleaser, Iranaqamuk, real world chick, redglare, CTLiberal, bleeding heart, Preston S, el cid, Potus2020, inner light, rsie, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, WI Dem, means are the ends, cherryXXX69, Miles in WesternWA, airmarc, AmySmith, FrankieB, bstotts, Snarcalita, Picot verde, duha, Pandoras Box, DemOrDie, Tempus Figits, embra, ammasdarling, Tamar, dov12348, Reagan Smash, fisheye, wildNwonderful, ibonewits, anotherdemocrat, Ken in MN, Cronesense, Wanda517, Loudoun County Dem, FWIW, SemDem, suburi, Positronicus, Calvin Revolt USA, Sam from Ithaca, danwood, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, Owllwoman, chigh, HeartlandLiberal, jfoster, NoMoJoe, dolphin777, jayden, ca democrat, tcdup, gatordem, PrgrsvArchitect, Brass Tacks, LWelsch, Zydekos, MichiganGirl, roguetrader2000, TomP, ImpeccableLiberalCredentials, MKinTN, fayeforcure, Skulnick, bluehawaii, Tally, Phil N DeBlanc, I, KansasLiberal, ScottyUrb, Andrew40, Cat Servant, langerdang, Greasy Grant, left my heart, Chomskyface, phrogge prince, jimmyboyo, Tropical Depression, ShainZona, gopher747, revelwoodie, watercarrier4diogenes, 4km, Chad Michaels, tabby

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site