Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. that condemned the MoveOn.org ad as an "unwarranted personal attack." The Boxer resolution went a step further by also condemning the political attack ads used to question the patriotism of Vietnam veterans Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga. In a news conference today, President Bush called the ad "disgusting" and attacked Democrats for not immediately denouncing it. "And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush said. Eli Pariser, executive director of the liberal group, responded by saying, "What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war." The New York Times' selling of the ad space to MoveOn.org at a discounted rate has sparked calls for a congressional investigation into possible campaign finance violations by the newspaper.


Why do you suppose it is considered an "unwarranted personal attack." in the case of moveon and not against Democrats?

RTTNews - Breaking News, financial breaking News, Positive EPS Surprises, Stock research ....

Politicians busy doing nothing.

What ever happened to the First Amendment, and did not Rudy get the same discount to run an ad?






Grace and Peace

Much ado about nothing, as usual. Get the stupes all riled up about nothing so Bush's Administration doesn't have to address the REAL PROBLEMS of the nation such as THE IRAQ WAR, ENDLESS WAR... (for one) :)

The people aren't fooled anymore... Bush's popularity rating is at 29%... ENDLESS WAR isn't very popular with the sane citizens and mothers.

By the way, since when can't PUBLIC FIGURES be criticized?? SINCE NEVER!!

I think it was a waste of time . But I think most "sense of the Senate or House "resolutions are a waste of time and tax payers money.

They should refund their pay for the time they waste in those debates.

Approval rating for Congress is lower than Bush's. What does that tell you?

Quote:

---

Why do you suppose it is considered an "unwarranted personal attack." in the case of moveon and not against Democrats?

---

The big distinction I think (if there is any at all )is that General Petraeus in his current role is not a politician but a 4 star General who's job was to report to Congress his observations of the progress of the war in Iraq.

I am not aware of any of the ads directed at Max Cleland. I am aware of the ones against John Kerry. In Kerry's case and I suspect Cleland they made their military careers a big part of their campaign. That made their records a legitimate target for scrutiny . If their military records were not an object to be politicized then they should not have politicized their records. Ads about their record were as legitimate as those that questioned President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that condemned the MoveOn.org ad as an "unwarranted personal attack." The Boxer resolution went a step further by also condemning the political attack ads used to question the patriotism of Vietnam veterans Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga. In a news conference today, President Bush called the ad "disgusting" and attacked Democrats for not immediately denouncing it. "And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush said. Eli Pariser, executive director of the liberal group, responded by saying, "What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war." The New York Times' selling of the ad space to MoveOn.org at a discounted rate has sparked calls for a congressional investigation into possible campaign finance violations by the newspaper.


Why do you suppose it is considered an "unwarranted personal attack." in the case of moveon and not against Democrats?

RTTNews - Breaking News, financial breaking News, Positive EPS Surprises, Stock research ....

---

I think the resolution infringes upon MoveOn.org's inalienable right to spend it's donor supplied funds in any frivolous manner it chooses.

I'm not too impressed with the Democratic Senators who once again allowed themselves to be browbeaten into supporting yet another resolution that runs contrary to their stated agenda.

Then again, it's been a very long time since the DNC has done much of anything I find/found impressive.

Boxer voted for her version of the amendment but against Cornyn's, the one that passed.

I guess it wasn't good enough to support this highly decorated and honorable soldier currently serving his country with a most difficult task. Instead, they sought a pound of flesh on behalf of two Democrat politicians running for office at the time. One of the ads used images of UBL and Hussein but only challenged his Senate voting record.

Are such amendments a waste of time? Perhaps, perhaps not. We had a revealing look at the priorities of a number of politicians, such as 2 presidential candidates, Clinton and Dodd who voted no, along with other usual suspects, Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid and Schumer. Biden and Obama did not vote.

update

NY Slimes public editor Clarke Hoyt wrote an oped that says he thinks the Slimes made a mistake in accepting the ad.

Betraying Its Own Best Interests - New York Times

Quote:

---

the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”...


For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it's abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen's shoes, I'd have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.

---

The Democrats are weak... Bush has left it to the next President to handle the withdrawal and diplomatic situations and all the wiping up of Bush's horrendous mess, and the Dems think that will be their responsibility, winning very big in 11-08.

Therefore, they don't want to be too aligned with the left... the Dem Candidate is going to run as a ModerateLeft candidate.

Hello DC:

Democrats suck slightly less than Republicans...

excon

Quote:

---

the Dem Candidate is going to run as a ModerateLeft candidate.

---

Yep

The Slimes David Brooks has a good essay on this today .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/op...gewanted=print