Osama Sounds Like Howard Dean

[andyfox]

So said Michael Medved on his syndicated radio show today. Is this typical of intelligent conservative political thought? I've heard many of the talking heads complain that the liberals are so vituperative when they talk about conservatives. Has any liberal compared Bush to O.B.L.?

[Utah]

Okay, I had to look up what vituperative meant and I have no idea who Michael Medved is and I didn't hear his comment.

I think usually both parties are about equal in this method of attack and they will score points when they can. However, it seems recently that the left is so blinded by their absolute hate for George Bush that many of them have gone off the deep end. For example, the add on moveon.org that compared Bush to Hitler was one of the most vile political attacks I have ever seen.

While I think the attacks from the left might be acceptable weapons in the world of politics, I cant help seeing many on them and thinking, "you little immature uneducated collage brats".

[MMMMMM]

andy did you set this up as a walk-into on purpose or something? How many liberals have you heard or read comparing Bush to Hitler?

[Wake up CALL]

Yes Andy they both seem to have an eastern accent. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

None. But I have heard almost every conservative compare the Democratic critics of the president's foreign policy to Neville Chamberlain and the "appeasers" of the 1930s. I listen to many of the major talking head shows on TV and a bunch on talk radio (although it's hard to find any liberals on radio), and I listen (hard as it is) to what the major (and I use the word "major" advisedly) Democratic presidential candidates are saying and I haven't heard one say that the president sounds like Hitler.

But maybe I'm not looking or listening in the right places.

I've heard Hannity say that the Democrats hate America. I see books (that are not parodies like Mr. Franken's frankly unfunny supposedly funny books) calling Democrats, in their titles, idiots and traitors, and I've heard Mr. Limbaugh call feminists nazis. The most serious criticisms I hear from the Democrats are of Howard Dean, not of George Bush.

[andyfox]

I haven't visited moveon.org and know nothing about it. I agree with you that political "debate" on both sides has degenerated. A "he started it, no he started it" anlysis would hardly be productive, but it does seem to me the hatred the right had for Clinton was the genesis of this process. It wasn't that long ago when the two debating presidential candidates referred to each other as "President Carter" and "Governor Reagan." Then Bush 41 told people that his dog knew more about foreign policy than "this guy" (Clinton).

I suppose we live in a generally coarser society anyway. Perhaps my complaints are just those of an old curmudgeon.

[ACPlayer]

Most of the time what I hear from the right today makes me think: "you little stupid moronic pieces of dog fecal matter".

I usually pause after that and acknowledge that dog fecal matter does not smell as bad.

[MMMMMM]

andy you are correct that we live in an increasingly coarse society. Something must be done. It is a grievous thing.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
For example, the add on moveon.org that compared Bush to Hitler was one of the most vile political attacks I have ever seen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, that "ad" was not sponsored by or approved by moveon.org. They held a contest, asking people to submit ads that would be used to get out information about Bush. (basically anti-bush ads I guess, but not necessarily slimy or untrue) They got over 1,000 ads, ranging from amateurish to very professional and creative. Subscribers to the site (which I guess I became after I signed one online petition that they sponsored... it concerned radio industry regulations.) rated ads, and a system based on those ratings was used to determine 15 finalists. I rated a few. Ultimately one winner will be picked and played, I think, on TV. Two ads from among those 1,000+ happened to compare Bush to Hitler, were rated poorly, and dropped from contention.

From what I gather from a moveon.org mailing, someone on Fox News presented a story about the Hitler ads as if moveon.org had created or sponsored them or intended to use them or something. Not true; they were simply two among the many submissions to the contest


BTW, I've seen the 15 finalists, and a few of them are really quite good in terms of creativity and impact. Of course they are anti-Bush, but no more so than one would expect from any political ad these days.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I gather from a moveon.org mailing, someone on Fox News presented a story about the Hitler ads as if moveon.org had created or sponsored them or intended to use them or something. Not true; they were simply two among the many submissions to the contest

[/ QUOTE ]

This is par for the course for moveon.org (and it's loyal groupies), Fox did nothing of the sort. I saw the story live and it was accurately reported as being a contest entry which failed to move on.

[Utah]

The fox story was accurate.

My understanding though, is that the add was on their site. They knew about it. And they failed to remove it immediately. Please correct me if that is not accurate.

[John Feeney]

From moveon's email:

"Mr. Gillespie repeatedly referred to the ads as 'the MoveOn ad' or 'MoveOn's ad,' implying that we had sponsored or perhaps even commissioned the ad. And he also claimed that we might spend $7 million to run it on TV."

And why do you want to use phrases like "loyal groupies"? Seems like a sort of nasty jab. BTW, I suspect most moveon members are just folks like myslef who may have participated marginally in one or two of their email campaigns, but who are far from loyal or groupies. I'm sure they do have more active members though. Still, I wonder if "groupie" would be the right word. I couldn't even tell you the name of the founder of moveon. Just because it's a liberal organization... Oh, forget it.

[Wake up CALL]

John,

Last time I checked Ed Gillespie was the RNC Chairman, not a member of Fox news. This was my point, moveon.org, and just now you, implied that Fox News made this assertion. Perhaps it was inadvertant on your part but could hardly be accidental as purported via the portion of the email you quoted.

Edited:

This was also a particularly nice touch:

"MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbon said, "we had no idea the Hitler thing even existed."

[John Feeney]

I I understand it, the ad was on their site in that it was one of a pool of over 1,000 ads which were being rated. AFAIK, yoiu couldn't just go to the ad and look at it. When you did the ratings you were randomly presented with one ad at a time. I never saw the Hitler ads. Those raters who did obviously gave them poor ratings. I don't know who knew what, but presume that someone who screened the ads to begin with knew of the ads in question. Whether that person(s) brought them up with those in charge, I wouldn't know. In any case, whether they should have been removed from the contest, or allowed to die as they did in the ratings is probably debatable. Some might complain of censorship if those or any ads were simply removed. Again, AFAIK you couldn't just go to those ads and watch them. At least I saw no such option to go to ads without rating them.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
From moveon's email:

"Mr. Gillespie repeatedly referred to the ads as 'the MoveOn ad' or 'MoveOn's ad,' implying that we had sponsored or perhaps even commissioned the ad. And he also claimed that we might spend $7 million to run it on TV."

And why do you want to use pharases like "loyal groupies"? Seems like a sort of nasty jab. BTW, I suspect most moveon members are just folks like myslef who may have participated marginally in one or two of their email campaigns, but who are far from loyal or groupies. I'm sure they do have more active members though. Still, I wonder if "groupie" would be the right word. I couldn't even tell you the name of the founder of moveon. Just because it's a liberal organization... Oh, forget it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They even misquoted Mr. Gillespie just to rile the groupies up John. Below is what he really said about the $7 million:

"Gillespie told Fox News that MoveOn.org will spend more than $1 million a day to support Bush's defeat in November and he said that the organization planned to spend $7 million to air whatever ad wins the organization's contest."

Quite a bit different when taken in context eh?

[John Feeney]

Here's the entire paragraph I quoted from:

"RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie launched the attack on "Fox News Sunday," and the RNC followed it with press releases and calls to reporters. The charges centered on two ads posted on the Bush in 30 Seconds website which compared President Bush's tactis with those of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Gillespie repeatedly referred to the ads as 'the MoveOn ad' or 'MoveOn's ad,' implying that we had sponsored or perhaps even commissioned the ad. And he also claimed that we might spend $7 million to run it on TV"

As you see it was only my sloppy wording, not the reporting of moveon that made it look like I was referring to a Fox reporter. I said, "someone on Fox News" because I didn't recall who it was (reporter, interviewee...) and didn't think it important enough to check.

[Wake up CALL]

That is fair enough John, thanks for the correction. I was confident the news report was accurate and dislike misquotes used by either side. Fair and balanced is my motto, pretty catchy eh? LOL /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

Today, I heard Mr. Limbaugh say that Bill Bradley and Howard Dean looked liked the clown show at the circus. He was referring to their physical looks, not their politics. He also called Dean a dwarf. Again, he was referring to his physical stature. And this was in the first two minutes I listened to the show.

[MMMMMM]

I can well picture it.

How many would so vote, that on Sundays, all coarse persons should be put in the stocks, until such time as they adopt genteel manner of speech and civil conduct, such as would become at least an upright ape?

[elwoodblues]

And yet, some people still don't get the irony of the title to Franken's earlier work "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, and other observations."

[adios]

[B-Man]

Well Andy, Dean did say that he found the accusation that George Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand "interesting."

He also said he refused to judge the guilt of Osama Bin Ladin until he was tried.

Basically, according to Howard Dean, George Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, but Osama Bin Ladin did not!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Well Andy, Dean did say that he found the accusation that George Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand "interesting."

He also said he refused to judge the guilt of Osama Bin Ladin until he was tried.

Basically, according to Howard Dean, George Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, but Osama Bin Ladin did not!

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an astounding conclusion from what you posted!
Dean finds accusation of prior knowledge "interesting" = "Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand"

Dean refuses to pre-judge Bin Ladin = Dean believes Bin Ladin did not know about 9/11.

Unbelievable...where do you get this stuff?

[John Cole]

Michael Medved be may the the worst film reviewer I've ever seen--for what that's worth.

I'm beginning to think that these Christian mouthpieces believe that by saying something is so they make it so. Sort of divine fiat, if you will.

[John Cole]

My, all that in two minutes. The guy's a hard worker.

[B-Man]

Of course I was stretching the meaning of what Dean said, I was trying to make a point. No, he didn't come out and say, "George Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand" or "Osama Bin Laden is innocent." I don't dispute that.

However, I think any responsible public figure would have dismissed the accusation that Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand (and allowed the attacks to happen), rather than remarking that it was "interesting."

Just so you know, I find it interesting that Howard Dean is willing to give Osama Bin Ladin the benefit of doubt, yet he is apparently unwilling to extend the same courtesy to our President.

[andyfox]

Well, I know you probably don't listen regularly, but the man can talk. Fast. And long.

I happened to see a snippet of Bradley and Dean on TV and the disparity between their relative heights was indeed striking. But that's usually the case with Bradley and most anybody (other than former teammates).

[elwoodblues]

I think our differences lie in the fact that I don't equate "interesting" with not giving the benefit of the doubt. I do, however, think that you're right that he probably should have dismissed the accusation outright.

[elwoodblues]

On a side note, I also think conservatives should have dismissed the accusations that Clinton "wagged the dog" outright as well.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Chris Alger]

No, it was misleading if Moveon's description of what Gillespie said was correct: "Mr. Gillespie repeatedly referred to the ads as 'the MoveOn ad' or 'MoveOn's ad,' implying that we had sponsored or perhaps even commissioned the ad. And he also claimed that we might spend $7 million to run it on TV." Moveon.org (http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/21936412.html)

[Wake up CALL]

" And he also claimed that we might spend $7 million to run it on TV."

Chris, Chris, Chris, I had to correct John Feeney on this same subject and now you try it all over again. What Mr. Gillespie said in reality was that moveon was considering spending the $7 mil on televising the winner of the ad campaign/contest. Oddly enough, this is what moveon is considering. Remarkable relevation I suppose!

[Chris Alger]

No, Gillespie misled people when he said "one of the ads that was submitted that they [Moveon.org] considered viable for airing with $7 million, by the way, in funds that we don't know where it comes from, but we know they've said they'd spend $7 million to air the ad that they've settled on--one of them morphed President Bush into Adolf Hitler." Chronwatch.com (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=5510)

Gillespie failed to disclose that by "viable" he didn't mean that moveon would ever consider airing such an ad, but merely that the ad comported with it's guideline that excluded from the website anything "inappropriate for television," an obvious reference to TV obscenity guidelines, by failing to disclose the number of ads, and by failing to disclose the criteria for airing them. The plain meaning of Gillespie's statement, as several posters here have ascertained, and which the right-wing press generally trumpeted, was that Moveon liked the ad and was considering spening $7 million on it. And that obviously was the deliberate attempt to create a false impression in the minds of others, or what rational people call "lying."

Further, this is just an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Andy Fox has provided numerous examples of GOP and right-wing demonization of Democrats every bit as foul the Bush-Hitler ones. And when has Ed Gillespie "repudiated" the election of GOP Sen. Saxby Chamblis, whose supporters helped him win defeat triple amputee Nam vet Max Cleland by running a TV ad showing Cleland's face morphing into bin Laden's. Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/index_np.html)

[Chris Alger]

In order to provide proper "context" for a quote, Mr. Fair-and-Balanced, one must first have a quote. Your reference to what Gillespie "really said" doesn't even purport to be a quotation by him.

[Wake up CALL]

In case you failed to notice I never claimed to quote Mr. Gillespie verbatim in this prior post. I had quoted and posted the link to a "valid" news organization when clarifying Mr. Feeney's incorrect interpretation.

Here is the exact and correct quote Chris:

"Gillespie told Fox News that MoveOn.org will spend more than $1 million a day to support Bush's defeat in November and he said that the organization planned to spend $7 million to air whatever ad wins the organization's contest."

[Chris Alger]

But since it's not a quote by Gillespie (and doesn't purport to be) it doesn't shed any light on the exact thing that Gillespie said. Or don't you understand that your "quote" is someone's paraphrase of what he said?

[Utah]

I am sorry, but you didnt answer the questions.

Was the ad on there site? - Yes
Did they know about? - Yes
Did they remove it? - No

Please tell me if this is incorrect. To say the ad didn't do well in the voting and didn't make it to the next round is a bad argument. What if the ad had done well in the voting?

Regardless of the ads themselves, moveon and its supporters have a strong history of connecting Bush to Hitler.

You say in another post that the Republicans are just as vile. Yes, definately so. However, that does nothing to relieve the culpability of Moveon.org, Democrats, or people like you that support groups or people (e.g., Michael Moore) that behave in a vile manner.

[John Feeney]

Utah, you asked me the questions, not Chris. I told you what I knew. For instance, I said the ads were "on the site" in the sense that the were fed to some raters, but were not available to just anyone who logged on. They were not on display for the public in that way. I said I didn't know who knew what re the ads being on the site. Do you? Obviously they didn't remove them, though the ratings did So what? Should any ad someone objects to be removed? I doubt it Should only those most people object to be removed? What about those most people object to extremely strongly? Maybe, but I won't be volunteering to decide where the line should be drawn. Where, precisely do you think it should be?

WuC, I never realized you had corrected me on something. I thought I had corrected *you* on your misinterpretation of my sloppy wording. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif I can't keep up with all this subliminal posting. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I merely presented the Moveon version of what Gillespie had said. If they (Moveon) didn't spin it too much, if Gillespie did indeed keep referring to it as "the Moveon ad" and such, then the Fox story (by way of Gillespie) presented a misleading picture. Maybe they did spin it a lot. They probably did spin it to at least some extent. But I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. You say you posted a link. What link? Was it to the Fox transcript? I saw no link. /images/graemlins/confused.gif I saw a sort of quote or something, with no source or link provided.

[Utah]

Hi John,

I was trying to clarify the picture and I thought your original expanation was good. However, I dont think it really removed the culpability of moveon.org. My point to Chris was to look at the facts and to remove this "he said, she said" B.S.

I said I didn't know who knew what re the ads being on the site. Do you?

I dont know if or who at moveon.org knew. However, I would bet $1,000 that they did know about the ads.

Obviously they didn't remove them, though the ratings did So what?

Of course, that is a world of difference.

Should any ad someone objects to be removed? I doubt it Should only those most people object to be removed? What about those most people object to extremely strongly? Maybe, but I won't be volunteering to decide where the line should be drawn. Where, precisely do you think it should be?

Hey, I am a huge free speech propoent and I think they should be able to say or show whatever they want. I even called such attacks an acceptable method since both sides use them. You are correct in your insinuation that the line is impossible to draw anf thereofre the line shouldn't be drawn. However, I am also just as free to make the interpetation and say that those responsible or who support such attacks are disgusting and vile people.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I would bet $1,000 that they did know about the ads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's highly likely someone, like a screener, knew. It's somwhat less likely that someone in charge knew. Still, they may well have.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I am also just as free to make the interpetation and say that those responsible or who support such attacks are disgusting and vile people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be quite critical of them too, depending on what the ads said. (I never saw them.) But it's not really clear to me that the higher-ups at Moveon "supported" the ads. I mean, even if they saw them, they may have said something like, "Wow, that's disgusting. Well, it will never win. Let's just keep an eye on it. I'm sure it will die quickly in the ratings. If not, we'll decide how to deal with it."

[Chris Alger]

The creators of the ad are hardly "disgusting, vile people" just because they made Bush seem like Hitler. Obviously the Republicans aren't fairly comparable to Nazis, who are simply off the scale when it comes to savagery. But there are some similarities: massive lying to the public, simple ideologies laden with crude emotion, aggressively invading foreign countries with hardly a pretext of self-defense, incarcerating citizens without charges or access to counsel, international oprobrium. These things don't amount to Hitler, but they put Bush closer to the end of the scale than any President in memory, including Reagan. It's not so terribly unfair for people to make crude analogies between Bush and the most famous tyrant and invader of all time.

Further, the real problem isn't lack of civility but the right's demand that it retain a monopoly on dumbed-down hardball rhetoric, of which Gillespie's misleading attack on is actually just another example of the hypocrisy. If the gloves are off, let's just admit it and get on with the show.

If this level of crude propaganda seriously misleads a measurable part of the the public, then our problem is much bigger than lack of civility, bad taste or "unfairness."

[Utah]

Maybe they are and maybe they are not. All I am saying is that I am just as free to make that determination as they are to produce such ads. Both sides (which I am a part of neither) are disingenuous in that they want to sling mud but they don't want any thrown back in their face.

But there are some similarities: massive lying to the public, simple ideologies laden with crude emotion, aggressively invading foreign countries with hardly a pretext of self-defense, incarcerating citizens without charges or access to counsel, international oprobrium. These things don't amount to Hitler, but they put Bush closer to the end of the scale than any President in memory, including Reagan.

I think you forget that we have been attacked and we are still very threatened with attack. I don't think you can easily dismiss that. Yes, it is completely possible that the Bush doctrine is the wrong approach to terrorism. However, it very well might be the right one. Preventive war is not a new concept and it has been discussed since the 40s and it has roots very deep in game theory. Stripping aside moral conduct, which I think is a fallacy, the arguments are strong.

One can argue at length about whether Saddam and the Taliban posed a threat and I will not attempt to do so since we will not agree. However, it is not like we decided to go attack Canada. As far as world scorn, we have discussed that at length before so lets not rehash it. Again, only to say that the "cooperative" world model you favor has not lead the world towards peace in the least bit (100 million+ violent deaths), spread of terrorism, planes crashing into building, and rogue nations building nulcear weapons.

The rhetoric has always been dumbed down and the methods of propaganda have not really changed - but they have been sharpened. Reagan and Clinton refined it to an art form. Bush is just following in their footsteps.

You simply cant logically compare Bush to Hitler. We live in a democracy and not a dictatorship. If the people dont like Bush they can remove him. We'll see the peoples judgement in a less than a year.

Further, the real problem isn't lack of civility but the right's demand that it retain a monopoly on dumbed-down hardball rhetoric, of which Gillespie's misleading attack on is actually just another example of the hypocrisy. If the gloves are off, let's just admit it and get on with the show.

The left demands the same thing. As I originally said, the attack method on moveon.org was acceptable. But, and again, one can fairly make judgements on those creating the ads. You can make the ads in the name of free speech and then be appalled that you are criticized or called vile.

If this level of crude propaganda seriously misleads a measurable part of the the public, then our problem is much bigger than lack of civility, bad taste or "unfairness."

It always has and it always will. No different than the left spinning the Clinton sex affair. This is not the politicians fault. It is the citizens fault for being too lazy to be informed.

Both republicans and democrats use the simple and unbelievably effective "Hitler" approach of saying something simple and then simply saying it over and over and over and over. Look at the posts on this board from both the left and the right - the comments sound like they are straight out of democrat or Republican talking points.

People like to think that they think for themselves, but they dont. For examples, lets say it was Gore who lead us to war and the Republicans were bashing him. The same people now supporting the war would be chanting anti-war rhetoric and they would think that it is so obvious that we shouldn't have fought. The left anti-war crowd would be supporting the war with the same logic the right is currently using. You can see this effect clearly with operation Desert Fox. Of course, this doesn't hold true for everyone - as I bet you would have been against the war either way. However, it has massive effect on the general population.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
think you forget that we have been attacked and we are still very threatened with attack. I don't think you can easily dismiss that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I have to dismiss it: it conveys no information. It was true before 9/11 and will be true forever. To cite this and say, therefore, we must invade Iraq or designate U.S. citizens as enemy combantants without elementary protections of due process is irrational.

[Utah]

No point in discussing this with you. Regardless of how much you read, You have so little understanding of warfare, force, and the threat of force that there is no use in discussing.

You need to learn that the threat of force is what prevents its use in the first place.