That MoveOn Ad

I completely agree with the dread DC Establishment that calling General Petraeus "General Betrayus" was dumb. That said, I'm staggered by the amount of emphasis that people inside this town are placing on this. One virtue of having moved to the Beltway is that I can tell you, the reader, a thing or to about the mood here and that while you might think the reverse is true, the truth of the matter is that the left-of-center establishment is being restrained in terms of expressing its absolutely fury at MoveOn over this. People seem to really think that this was not merely a misstep, but a huge blunder of world-historical proportions.

As best I can tell, it's all basically bullshit. The whole fracas of Petraeus, Crocker, MoveOn, etc. has had, to a good first approximation, no impact whatsoever on anything of any significance. Bush continues to be stubborn. Republicans continue to back Bush. The war continues to go poorly and continues to be unpopular. There was nothing else that ever could have happened. A bunch of editors and politicians talked themselves into believing that this September showdown was crucially significant, but they were all wrong and their theory never made any sense.

The only showdown that mattered happened months ago. Democrats passed a war appropriation that funded the phased withdrawal of troops. Bush vetoed that appropriation and said he would only sign an appropriation that funded open-ended war. Bush sought to portray a congressional refusal to appropriate money for an open-ended military involvement in Iraq as some kind of plot to leave the troops starving and without bullets in Iraq. The press largely bought into this frame, which was re-enforced by the fact that many leading Democrats immediately decided to buy into as well. The party then decided not to try to fight to reframe the issue but, instead, to accept it. Given that framing of the question, the only thing to do was surrender and give Bush his money. And given that precedent, the only thing to do is to keep on surrendering any time Bush rhetorically holds the troops' well-being hostage to his preference for perpetual war.

That was a blunder -- a decision that condemned hundreds of Americans to die in Iraq -- and one that appears to have resulted from a total failure of the leadership to do any advance planning about their legislative tactics. All of September 2007 has been a meaningless sideshow. People find it comforting, I guess, to try to convince themselves that MoveOn is the reason our troops will be engaged in at least 18 more months of futile combat in Iraq, but it's just not true -- legislative defeat in September was inevitable, and the war is still very unpopular and still a very promising issue for 2008.

Comments

I completely agree with the dread DC Establishment that calling General Petraeus "General Betrayus" was dumb.

Dumb? It was certainly inflammatory, but was it really dumb? How much free publicity did MoveOn get?

Besides, as Noz describes, it was also a defensible inflammatory statement.

Posted by DrexelDem | September 21, 2007 10:48 AM

Matt:

Why was the MoveOn ad dumb? You have said this several times and never said why. I guess you think this is obvious, but not to me.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 10:50 AM

Moveon understands that the terms of the debate have to be changed in order to change policy. The Democratic leadership doesn't understand this, or isn't willing to do it. So the Beltway establishment is going to be angry.

If Moveon succeeds, the Beltway Dem establishment will go along docilely, because that's what they do.

Posted by politicalfootball | September 21, 2007 10:50 AM

Move On's blunder was huge PRECISELY because the reaction was predictable.

And as for the cave in on funding you describe, the main cheerleader for it in the Netroots was MOVE ON.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might think that the purpose of Move On's ad was to "recredentialize" itself on an agitating movement. After its failed and idiotic "ratcheting up the pressure" campaign, it was in dire need of it.

And because Left blogs apparently are not allowed to criticize each other or Move On, it has worked like a charm.

Posted by Armando | September 21, 2007 10:58 AM

, no impact whatsoever on anything of any significance.

You're mis-measuring "anything of any significance," probably out of Pundit's Fallacy. The idea that Democrats are hostile to the military has been pretty valuable to the Republicans. So they're trying to replant that idea and grow it. Not nothing, just not directly relevant to questions about Iraq.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 11:04 AM

Armando:

The reaction was predictable, but that was the whole point, wasn't it? To get the message out that there were a lot of people that didn't think Petraeus was credible? Democratic congressmen and senators weren't going to be able to get that point across, at least in a way that anyone was going to pay attention. I have to believe that the phrase "General Betay Us" is going to stick in people's minds and leave more doubt than would have been there otherwise.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 11:05 AM

it was also a defensible inflammatory statement.

Boy, that's precisely what I've been thinking--that "betray" wasn't used in the sense of Petraeus being a traitor--but Noz's post is the first time I've seen this point made.

A related point that isn't mentioned enough either is that "General Betrayus" was a derotagory nickname used by the *troops* as far back as 2003, which MoveOn simply picked up for the ad; they didn't invent it. It's extremely doubtful that Petraeus's troops meant it to suggest he was a traitor.

If the ad was "dumb," it would be because MoveOn didn't anticipate that the right would take the term "betray" in the worst possible (not to mention most unlikely) light and use that interpretation to distract attention from what the ad was actually saying--or that so few on the left would forcefully defend the ad against such slimy Swiftboating.

Posted by Swift Loris | September 21, 2007 11:05 AM

Boy, that's precisely what I've been thinking--that "betray" wasn't used in the sense of Petraeus being a traitor--but Noz's post is the first time I've seen this point made.

Who cares? The point is to move people in your direction. That they misunderstood it is an indication that you failed, not that they failed. Similarly, if you have to explain a joke, it's not a good joke.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 11:09 AM

The Democratic party is in serious trouble. Our base is not going to be motivated for the tepid politicians that currently haunt the party. Two serious questions need to be asked; 1) what would a Republican congress have done differently than this congress? 2) What have the Democrats been given by the adminsitration in return for the cave-ins? If the answer to 2) is "nothing," then conservatives have a point; why should I trust national security to a party who routinely gets fleeced and embarassed by their opponents?

Posted by Michigander | September 21, 2007 11:09 AM

Those on the right who continue to go on about this ad are really embarrassing themselves. On NRO's "The Corner," there are about 20 mentions of MoveOn just on the front page. A blogger I read the other day, can't remember who, suggested that Hillary's refusal to condemn the ad would be a major issue in the 2008 general election.

Delusional.

Posted by Jason C. | September 21, 2007 11:13 AM

so matthew, you're inside the beltway: can you please explain the strange aversion that the left-of-center establishment has to looking at polling data that shows us that the war is unpopular, that petraeus didn't change anyone's mind, that the war is unpopular, that bush is unpopular, and that the war is unpopular? the public wants this piece of adventurism to come to an end: what, exactly, are these left-of-center clowns thinking all day that they obsess on a move-on ad instead of noting reality?

Posted by howard | September 21, 2007 11:13 AM

It's so frustrating that the Left is always reacting to the Right's narrative, never driving the narrative.

Posted by First K | September 21, 2007 11:15 AM

As mind-boggling as the phrase "left of center establishment" may be, let's accept it and, uh, move on. Because what we're really seeing is that people inside the beltway have suffered such neuronal disintegration that the answers or help won't be coming from there.

The Move-On ad was basically correct- at this point in the game Petraeus is really just a sock-puppet for the WH. The current "plan" is the same as it always was- a permanent American occupation of Iraq. The "surge", as predicted, is an escalation.

And, in fact, none of the likely Democratic presidential candidates have any plans to change this. They have no ability to describe why this is insane. As far as they're concerned, things will just go on, as they do in healthcare and our grotesquely swollen "justice" system, and if, in fact, this is by any normal measurement a total failure, well, to people with health insurance and millions to spend on lawyers, it simply doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, aided by our own xenophobia, the rest of the world will learn to ignore us and wall us off, just as we used to hope that the body would encapsulate and wall off a tuberculosis lesion.

Of course, things won't be that easy, and thereby hangs a tale. Because our ability to attack people with nuclear weapons, or our ability to plunge the world into a depression, is unprecedented, the tale is impossible to foretell.

But the odds are very much against the idea that the tale will involve the establishment in Washington DC ruling the world and preserving our suburban lifestyle. Stick a fork in it, it's done.

Posted by serial catowner | September 21, 2007 11:17 AM

"betray" wasn't used in the sense of Petraeus being a traitor

that's a mighty fine distinction. easy to land on the wrong side of that one.

If the ad was "dumb," it would be because MoveOn didn't anticipate that the right would take the term "betray" in the worst possible (not to mention most unlikely) light

what's unlikely is that the right, who have been accusing Dems of literal treason for years would see the word "betray" (a synonym of "treason") and not react exactly as they have. if MoveOn didn't anticipate that, they need to close up shop.

MoveOn's ad was utterly stupid and childish.

Posted by cleek | September 21, 2007 11:18 AM

map, you write:

I have to believe that the phrase "General Betay Us" is going to stick in people's minds and leave more doubt than would have been there otherwise.

Especially since the "Betray Us" sobriquet was invented by milbloggers, not MoveOn. (Caveat: The site is from Pantloads Media, so it could always be part of a disinformation campaign).

What do I care what the courtiers in Versailles on the Potomac think? Our job is to shove the Overton Window left; to make the unthinkable, thinkable, and to make the unsayable, sayable. If that causes a little heartburn for the people who think they're on our side, they need to put down the pearls that they're clutching, and check their suckitude. After that, they should start doing the right thing.

Posted by lambert strether | September 21, 2007 11:18 AM

I dunno -- I kind of think that if there wasn't this ad, the war supporters would have found something else to latch on to.

Posted by JohnMcG | September 21, 2007 11:25 AM

Surely the DC establishment is secretly grateful to Moveon for providing them with a ready made excuse to kow tow before Bush and, if I may so put it, 'betray us'. Not that they would have had any difficulty finding another if Moveon hadn't placed its ad.

Posted by J | September 21, 2007 11:28 AM

The idea that we have to waste time defending a stupid Move On ad is just idiotic.

All this nonsense is proof of the stupidity of the ad. If it was intended to forward our position on Iraq.

If it was intended to rally support for Move On, it was a smashing success.

What dupes the Left blogs are.

Posted by Armando | September 21, 2007 11:30 AM

What JohnMcG said. I mean moveon shouldn't have claimed to have invented the internet or fallen for the forged Killian memo but there must be some reason that there is alwas something no ?

On the other hand it is not over. Conference committees remember ? The republicans have to pass a defence appropriations bill and, if Democrats in the House mandate dwell time equal to in Iraq time, the conference committee can put it in the report which can't be filibustered and we can have a redo on the veto game.

Posted by robert Waldmann | September 21, 2007 11:30 AM

Nobody except for the shrieking ninnies in DC care about that ad. It's not a big deal. And the reason it's not a big deal is because - gasp! - MOST AMERICANS AGREE WITH IT. Look at the polls. The ad said exactly, I repeat, exactly what most people already know to be true. Look at the polls now, nobody was rallied by that miserable testimony or that horrid late night speech. Americans want to get out of Iraq and anyone and everyone associated with the Iraq war is poison... including Petreaus. Get that through your thick skull DC.

Posted by Joshua | September 21, 2007 11:33 AM

They came into our town and messed it all up. That's the attitude of the Washington press corps and insiders. It's a tribal, geographical reaction just like the reaction against Bill and Hillary. How dare some jerks from California attack a General?

I agree with you that the ad was dumb. It gave the Republicans something to talk about and to rally their nutso base. American public opinion, however, will not sway. Everyone sees the Senate and press talking about some ad and they think, "Who cares? Why the hell aren't they ending this war?"

Posted by Paul | September 21, 2007 11:35 AM

It might be constructive to imagine the view of things 30-50 years from now- what info will be in college textbooks, documentaries? What the government did or didn't do to end the war? Yes. The MoveOn ad? Not a friggin' chance.

Posted by clb72 | September 21, 2007 11:38 AM

Everyone knows that the Democrats don't have the votes to end this war (what with Joementum ensuring Democratic control of the Senate). Everyone knows that there is no historical precedent for one party in Congress, even the one in charge, single handedly ending a war which the executive is dead set to continue (or maybe even to escalate). This war will not end till the Decider's term is over, period. It is just not possible whichever way you slice or dice it. Well other than the Republicans in Congress deserting en masse and joining with the Dems. We all know the chances of that happening.

So what can the Dems do? The main criticism seems that they did not play their hand better even though in the end they would have to cave in (compromise?) anyway. That they are amateurs and got outmaneuvered. They didn't do a better PR job. By contrast, as some point out, the GOP are better tacticians and would have handled a similar situation better. So that's the problem i.e. the Congressional Dems are not as crafty/manipulative as the Republicans. I don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing. Haven't we had enough of the GOP and its shameful tactics? The problem is not tactics; it is the overall strategy which the Dems CAN’T CHANGE BY THEMSELVES. The war is a huge tragedy and it is shameful that our soldiers still die because people are not willing to admit they made a mistake. But this is the President's war. This is the GOP’s war. That is why we are still there. And I think the voters know that.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 21, 2007 11:38 AM

And the reason it's not a big deal is because - gasp! - MOST AMERICANS AGREE WITH IT.

do you have data that show most Americans agree with "Betrayus" ? because that, that one word, is the only part of the ad that's being talked about.

MoveOn might've had a good point with the rest of the ad, but it was betrayed by that one word.

Posted by cleek | September 21, 2007 11:38 AM

I guess I don't care what the right-wing thought "Betray Us" meant or what their reaction was. (I doubt they would have reacted well to any MoveOn ad that questionned Petraeus.) I care what the general public takes from this whole thing, and from what I can see the General's testimony didn't move anybody. What exactly is the downside of this ad? What damage was done? Do people think that the war is being prolonged because a grand compromise was scuttled by this ad?

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 11:39 AM

cleek, speaking of "data," do you have "data" to show that most americans give a good god-damn about that ad? i sure don't.

Posted by howard | September 21, 2007 11:40 AM

. And the reason it's not a big deal is because - gasp! - MOST AMERICANS AGREE WITH IT

You can agree with the sentiment behind the ad, and even with the majority of the ad's copy, and still find the ad offensive. That's pretty common, actually.

The ad was a moronic own-goal. Fine. That's how you learn. Move On will do better the next time around. As you note, the vast majority of the country doesn't care about the issue one way or the other. The issue should just die, and probably would but for the constant defenses people make out of...gawd knows.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 11:41 AM

I wrote on the morning the ad came out,

"It's a stupid, counterproductive, distracting ad.
The focus oughtta be on the numbers, but the noise about this stupid ad will practically drown it out.
Yes, that's because the GOP is immoral, noisy, and fact-averse, and because the media sucks. But that's the lay of the land."

And I think I was right. Yes, the GOP would have done anything to avoid discussing the realities of Iraq. But the ad was an easy thing for them to seize on.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 21, 2007 11:43 AM

Oh, cut it out, Matt, you know damn well that if they hadn't used "Betray Us" in the ad, the wingers would have been all over them for questioning St. Petreaus anyway.

Dammit, the man dishonered the uniform by allowing himself to be used as Bush's personal political spokesbeing, and he deserved it.

Posted by Avedon | September 21, 2007 11:46 AM

"This war will not end till the Decider's term is over, period. It is just not possible whichever way you slice or dice it."

The Democrats don't have to fund it. They don't have to pass a funding measure. They could easily block the upcoming $200 billion request. That they don't seems to be inexcusable cowardice. Furthermore, this is a pattern of behavior we're talking about. Its not just funding the occupation; the Democrats capitulate on spying, just as they capitulated on the Supreme Court Justices.

If these capitulations were part of some backroom deal to guarantee a tax increase, or funding of SChip, or some other progressive measures, I'd understand. However, if they aren't, they are evidence of pure political cowardice.

Posted by Michigander | September 21, 2007 11:49 AM

That's how you learn. Move On will do better the next time around.

Saw the Moveon spokesman, whose name I don't know (yet), debating the validity of Petraus's testimony with Laura Ingraham on the Today show this morning.

A few weeks ago, that debate would have been between Laura Ingraham and, say, Ana Marie Cox, both of whom would have agreed that one cannot accuse a general being badly wrong about anything important. Moveon gives intelligent views a seat at the table, something that has been sorely lacking.

Cleek notes that Democrats have been accused, regularly, of quite literal treason. Yet somehow, cleek fails to note the success of that language, and fails to congratulate Moveon for being more restrained.

Posted by politicalfootball | September 21, 2007 11:49 AM

What would have been a better way to get the numbers out? How, exactly, were the Democrats going to get the message out that there are real doubts about Pretraeus? Maybe through Joe Biden on Meet the Press? And I don't mean to political junkies, but to the general public.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 11:50 AM

Frankly I don't give a toss for the left of centre crowd in Washington. Yhe next time I see a Democratic strategist I am going to give him a sharp kick in the ass ( and her, too). The Washington crowd, both left and right, have pissed me off. Two members of my family are on their third tours in Iraq. I know what they endure. And these assholes in their air conditioned offices and think tanks are talking about strategies and values.

Five of us, all relations, will now donate all we can to MoveOn. If the ad scares the bejeejus out of both side they must be doing something right. As for us Democrats and Republicans (two of my crowd are moderate Repubs) we are not going to donate to either side, period.

Posted by Alan | September 21, 2007 11:51 AM

I have to agree with lambert strether. This was an effort by MoveOn to change the terms of the debate, to move away from this idea that Petreaus was somehow the voice of Moses come down from the mountain. The American people already go this but Washington still has its head up its ass.

The Democratic Congress is a pathetic joke. If they had any political skills at all they'd be dominating the Republicans at every turn. Every single issue cuts in their favor and yet they lose nearly every single battle. If this had been an ad by a major right-wing organization (imagine that, a right-wing organization having to take out an ad to get their position across, but let's pretend for a moment) the Republicans would have fallen all over themselves to defend and justify it. They would have screamed and yelled about the Democrats wasting Congress's time with such a stupid resolution and the resolution would have gotten not a single Republic vote. Thus is the conventional wisdom shifted.

But the Democrats, cowering and pissing themselves, fell over one another to make sure everyone knew they disagreed with the ad and the majority of the American public and that Patreaus was an unassailable saint! Really, I've been forgiving these guys and giving them the benefit of the doubt since time immemorial and saying, yeah, they suck but at least they aren't Republicans. Now, I just don't know anymore.

Posted by Rob Mac | September 21, 2007 11:54 AM

I agree with the content of the ad. That's why I'm angry with MoveOn for putting the inflammatory headline on it that has provided a distraction from any discussion of the numbers and how they were cooked. No one in the media is talking about the facts of the ad, but just endlessly blathering about whether using the word "betray" was vile or merely inappropriate.

That reaction was completely predictable, and MoveOn should have realized that the ad would be counterproductive with that headline.

I don't give a damn whether the ad was civil or not. I care whether it was effective, and as far as I can tell the situation is slightly worse for our side as a result of the ad, since the moronic "Democrats are against the troops" storyline has been reinforced while nothing positive has been accomplished.

Posted by KCinDC | September 21, 2007 11:58 AM

It seems pretty clear to me that if there'd been no MoveOn ad, the Wurlitzer would have found something else to be outraged about --- something some Democratic politician said that could be taken out of context and distorted, some question asked of Petraeus, some line buried deep in an ignored diary on DailyKos.

Posted by dm | September 21, 2007 12:01 PM

The more I think about this the ad was, dare I say, absolutely Rovian? Attack your opponent's strength. Instead of being afraid of Petraeus, go right after him. He is really all the Republicans have right now in the Iraq debate.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 12:01 PM

While I think the ad's headline was a mistake, the Senate resolution condemning the ad was an even bigger one. I don't understand why the leadership allowed the bill to come to the floor, and I'm disgusted that half the Democrats voted for the thing. The Republicans stood together against Boxer's resolution without fearing they were going to be viewed as unpatriotic for voting against it.

Posted by KCinDC | September 21, 2007 12:02 PM

KCinDC, you can't ask the "leadership" to overcome half their caucus in terms of coming to the floor. Half of the dems wanted a chance to criticize moveon. that's not harry reid's fault.

Posted by howard | September 21, 2007 12:04 PM

KCinDC:

Nobody would have known this ad existed without the headline! Nobody would have read our wonderful numbers! But maybe you are right and we should have published a careful dissection of how the methodology Petraeus used to calculate sectarian violence was flawed. That would have been a headline grabber, alright.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 12:05 PM

How are you reconciling

How, exactly, were the Democrats going to get the message out that there are real doubts about Pretraeus?

with

I care what the general public takes from this whole thing, and from what I can see the General's testimony didn't move anybody.

Do you really think the latter is because of the ad? People have made up their minds that Iraq was a mistake and is a disaster, and the ad--best efforts aside--can't harm that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 12:06 PM

Your 'Center-Left' establishment - presumably the Dem spinners and consultants - seems to be a little right of, say, Reagan in 1984, Matt. If you could freeze in amber the zeitgeist of our America, an America too dumb to tie its shoes, I think you could do no better than the reaction to the Move On ad. Take, for instance, the corrupt and seedy column by the Washington Post's Michael Dobb yesterday. Dobb is, I presume, one of those center left types. His fact check of the Move On ad finds, unsurprisingly, that it got the facts right. This does not prevent Dobb, a man who doesn't reveal in his column that he is a member of a think tank headed by the Ambassador to Iraq, C. Crocker, from claiming that the ad is full of lies. It turns out lies means not giving General Petraeus' words the most generous interpretation possible, and, if that is not an option, simply pretending that Petraeus did not say things that he did, in fact, say. It was a sloppy smear, and an amusing one: the idea of the Washington Post using a 'fact' checker to check the facts in an anti-war ad is all too ironic, since the Post is graced with the bugeyed editorials of Fred Hiatt, notorious for the spin, lies, and lunacy that has become the Post editorial trademark.

The juxtaposition of the condemnation of Move On org and the State Department shuffle trying to pressure the Iraqi government to put up with Blackwater's policy of treating Iraqis as potential hunting trophies yesterday was excellent - a timely reminder of what a disgusting beast this country has become,a sort of souped up version of the Confederate States as a world power - illiterate, immoral, and racist to the core. It turns out that, like so many slimy, immoral and disgusting policies, the Pentagon policy of promoting and hiring mercenaries originated with the Clinton white house of blessed memory. According to Dana Priest, it was William Cohen who made the big push to hire the Dyncorps et al. And the establishment tone about the mercenaries, in both the Post and the NYT, is that it is all a done deal: it is impossible for these people to think that privatized militaries are a bad idea. The story is treated not as an event on the moral or political plane, but purely in terms of PR - how are the U.S. and Maliki to save face while retaining a band of thugs to guard the Green Zone? It is as if it is set in stone that we have to have the thugs, that the thugs have to be hired by the Pentagon, that there is nothing we can do about it, that it would be 'too expensive' to try to, like, replace them with Army personnel answering, however remotely, to the people.

Too expensive in this trillion and a half dollar war. That is too laughable to fact check.

Posted by roger | September 21, 2007 12:08 PM

Map, I agree that the ad wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the attention without the headline. The problem is that the attention it has gotten hasn't helped us. The discussion of the ad isn't about the numbers or whether Petraeus is really independent of Bush. It's all about the word "betray" and how unhinged the left is and how much we hate the troops.

Not all publicity is good publicity. What have we gained from the coverage of the ad?

Posted by KCinDC | September 21, 2007 12:10 PM

Cleek notes that Democrats have been accused, regularly, of quite literal treason. Yet somehow, cleek fails to note the success of that language, and fails to congratulate Moveon for being more restrained.

i wish i knew what you were getting at. i have a feeling that you think you've taken me to task on something. but it's hard to tell since you've buried your point in snark.

i failed to note the success of that language? ummm. it's been wildly successful in motivating the GOP base. they can't order a fucking Happy Meal these days without accusing someone of treason. why should i have noted that ?

and i should congratulate MoveOn for... what? for not running a picture of Petraeus with a little Hitler moustache, or for not demanding in 400pt Helvetica that he be executed for treason ? i should congratulate them for not fucking up worse than they actually did ? that's just plain stupid.

maybe you think the Dems should crank up the rhetoric and start accusing the GOP of treason, in return? well, i'm afraid i, like many people, think that kind of rhetoric is poisonous. and i, like many people, have a long history of denouncing the use of such rhetoric from the GOP. it would be hypocritical of me to start encouraging the Dems to start using it too; and more importantly, i'd be encouraging people to lie, since i don't think people who vote Republican are necessarily traitors (confused and wrong maybe, but not treasonous).

so many questions...

Posted by cleek | September 21, 2007 12:11 PM

The Democrats simply don't understand that the terms of the national debate shift to the right every time they attack their base. The Republicans understand this. Ronald Regan kicked off his campaign in Adelphia, Miss. Bush went to Bob Jones. Thus, those of you who criticize the ad for being ineffective are missing the point; the ad is only ineffective because the Democrats criticized it!

What can the party do to MoveOn, anyway? Not allow it to sit in on strategy sessions about the best way to look feckless?

Posted by Michigander | September 21, 2007 12:11 PM

Paul writes:

I agree with you that the ad was dumb. It gave the Republicans something to talk about and to rally their nutso base.

That nutsos are reality-based is a questionable assumption at best. If the Conservatives aren't rallying the nutso base with a MoveOn ad, they'll be doing it because something an assistant professor somewhere said in the last 50 years caused a kitten to die. At this point, the base is a closed loop: Entirely circular and reflexive. Let's take the first step here and admit we're powerless to affect the Kool-Aid drinkers.

That means, from the standpoint of reinforcing winger narratives, the ad is a wash by definition. It's always going to be something. How the ad nets out has to be measured not only against what happened after, but by what would have happened after given other alternatives.

So, as political football says above:

Saw the Moveon spokesman, whose name I don't know (yet), debating the validity of Petraus's testimony with Laura Ingraham on the Today show this morning.

A few weeks ago, that debate would have been between Laura Ingraham and, say, Ana Marie Cox, both of whom would have agreed that one cannot accuse a general being badly wrong about anything important. Moveon gives intelligent views a seat at the table, something that has been sorely lacking.

Good. That shoves the Overton Window left. That's a win.

Posted by lambert strether | September 21, 2007 12:16 PM

The Washington establishment hasn't been so out of touch since the 1970s and I don't mean about Vietnam. I'm talking about rising crime, rising taxes, rising inflation, an increasing sense that the underclass was being rewarded for not working, and an increasing sense that government spending was out of control.

The conventional wisdom in Washington was that the emerging conservative movement formed around the candidacy of Goldwater was almost unmentionably loopy - a relic of the past rather than an auspice (or omen depending on your view) of the future; you didn't take them seriously in polite conversation.

But even as Mr. Nixon's "silent majority" may have cringed at their hyperbole and certainly didn't want their policy agenda enacted in whole there was some kind of fundamental agreement between the broad center of the electorate and the new right.

I doubt the broad center of the electorate today wants a total withdrawal from Iraq but they do want most of the troops out over the next year. And just like in the 1970s they're tired of being lied to taken from.

Posted by Linus | September 21, 2007 12:18 PM

KCinDC:

How do you know the publicity didn't help us? (By the way, I don't know either.) All I know is that there wasn't going to be a discussion of the "numbers" anyways, except on blogs. There never is. Now, however, a lot of people know that there is a real question about whether they should take Petraeus' word on how things are going in Iraq. For better or worse, the message that Petraeus might not be a straight-shooter is out there now.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 12:19 PM

I completly disagree, Dems need to keep using the Betrayal theme. The occupation of Iraq is not going to go well, no amount of spin will help the reality in Iraq. And the theme will frame the upcomming revalations about war profitiers stealing billions, mercinaries killing civilians etc. etc.. The repugs are scared to death that the truth of thier betrayal of americian values will stick.

Posted by occam's comic | September 21, 2007 12:22 PM

Saw the Moveon spokesman, whose name I don't know (yet), debating the validity of Petraus's testimony with Laura Ingraham on the Today show this morning.

just for the record, lemme say that i'm glad this happened. if that ad has positive effects, i'm all for them, and i hope they outweigh any negatives.

Posted by cleek | September 21, 2007 12:25 PM

occam's comic:

Excellent point. I think there are a lot of people out there who already have a sense of being betrayed over getting into this war and the happy talk since. I know I feel betrayed, but I wouldn't call anyone who has supported the war a traitor. When did those two words become synonymous?

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 12:27 PM

I hear there is speculation that this question was pre-arranged with Bill Sammon of the right-wing Washington Examiner.

Don't you think collusion to defraud the press might be a good story? Is anyone on it?

Posted by Not the senator | September 21, 2007 12:28 PM

I know I feel betrayed, but I wouldn't call anyone who has supported the war a traitor. When did those two words become synonymous?

When used with regards to a soldier? Are you kidding me?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 12:30 PM

No, I'm not kidding you. I guess I feel that the commander of our troops in Iraq has the obligation to be straight with us about how things are going over there. Not fulfillling that obligation, even for what the general may believe are noble purposes, is still a betrayal.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 12:37 PM

cleek -

There are two separate arguments here, and you're so tied up in knots that I can't figure out which you are making.

Was the Moveon ad ineffective? You seem to be arguing that it was ineffective the way that the Republicans' "treason" accusations have been ineffective. In this, you are simply mistaken. The Republicans' extremist rhetoric has been very effective.

Was the Moveon ad inherently immoral, the way the Republicans' "treason" accusations are? I'd say no. By seemingly being unable to distinguish between the words "betray" and "treason" you buy into the Republicans' false frame on this, but there really is a difference. I'm comfortable saying that Petraus's testimony was a betrayal - that's a reasonable and moderate description. Was it tantamount to treason? I'd say no if that subject was ever brought up by anyone, but it hasn't been brought up by anyone yet.

Posted by politicalfootball | September 21, 2007 12:39 PM

The DC left-of-center crowd is a.) incredibly timid and b.) not far left of center.

To change the dialogue and break the centrist, pro-war hex, someone's going to have to stick their neck out. The Democrats won't, so thank God for MoveOn. Even if I thought the ad were a mistake (I have no way of knowing, and neither do any of the people who've jumped to that conclusion) I'd just hope that MoveOn would come back again just as hard, but do it a little better.

In general, I think that screams of rage from the right, from the center-right media, and from loser Democrats should be taken as >evidence that something's working. That's ordinary common sense, especially when national polls have not shown any evidence of popular indignation from non-wingers.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 12:40 PM

I guess I feel that the commander of our troops in Iraq has the obligation to be straight with us about how things are going over there. Not fulfillling that obligation, even for what the general may believe are noble purposes, is still a betrayal.

And? You're already on Move On's side; they didn't need to spend the money on an ad for you.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 12:41 PM

Yes, map, "betray" doesn't necessarily imply treason against the country, but it was completely predictable that the right wing would spin it that way and that the media would go along.

I hope that those saying this moved the Overton window or otherwise helped us are correct, and that the positive effects outweigh the negatives. I'm just not seeing it.

Posted by KCinDC | September 21, 2007 12:43 PM

Was the Moveon ad ineffective? You seem to be arguing that it was ineffective the way that the Republicans' "treason" accusations have been ineffective.

err, no. i'm not arguing that at all.

Was the Moveon ad inherently immoral, the way the Republicans' "treason" accusations are? I'd say no.

yes.

By seemingly being unable to distinguish between the words "betray" and "treason" you buy into the Republicans' false frame on this

trea·son (trē'zən) pronunciation
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

mm k ?

if you're relying on people to choose your preferred definition of an emotionally-charged word, instead of one that is closely related to the topic at hand, you will fail.

Was it tantamount to treason? I'd say no if that subject was ever brought up by anyone, but it hasn't been brought up by anyone yet.

are you really saying nobody has accused Petraeus of treason ? a little Googling should clear that up.

Posted by cleek | September 21, 2007 12:50 PM

SomeCallMeTim:

Who are the people this ad is going to offend? I don't know if this ad helps, but I really can't see how it hurts. I'm not really on MoveOn's side here, but I really am sick of depending on congressional hearings to get our message out to the general public.

I have really lost my fear of right-wing talking points since 2004. It's been a 12-step program, but no matter what Republicans have been saying support for the war has been shrinking steadily. They are really not going to be able to move public opinion on this war. I think their best chance to do that was parading the well-educated Petraeus before the public. For some reason that didn't work. I don't know if the ad had anything to do with that, but there seem to be a lot of people who predicted a Petraeus bump scratching their heads right now. Like I said earlier, it may not have helped but I can't imagine how it hurt.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 12:53 PM

The mistake was simple, Democrats should never have backed down from the predictable response of "never apologize Republicans," and they should have agreed with and reinforced the premise of the add--that there are questions in the data that don't square with the GAO and NIE reports. Doing this they would not have come off as the ridiculous losers Republicans portrayed them as, focused on the substance, and appeared principled.

Backing down, condemning your own supporters, and apologizing for tough talk just makes the Democrats look the the emasculated wimps they are being portrayed as.

Posted by Bob | September 21, 2007 12:58 PM

KCinDC:

What negatives are you talking about? That's not saying there won't be any, but really, I don't see any. Republicans have been saying since 2004 that there are going to be consequences for opposing this war in all its forms and Republican support just keeps going down.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 12:59 PM

>Two serious questions need to be asked; 1) what would a Republican congress have done differently than this congress? 2) What have the Democrats been given by the adminsitration in return for the cave-ins?

I agree with this from Michigander (from way up there). These are crucial questions. And I think the devastating conclusion is that the country would have been better off had the Democrats not retaken the Congress last year. Back when they were powerless, the party remained pure. Now the Democrats also "own" the Iraq war, the erosion of civil liberties, and the expansion of executive power. The party has been corrupted. I won't vote next year. Seriously - why bother?

Posted by Michael S. | September 21, 2007 1:00 PM

I don't really want to get into this whole debate. I'll just say that the ad would have gone over a lot better if they'd gone with "Delay Us" instead of "Betray Us."

On the whole, we should probably just be thankful that the US forces in Iraq aren't commanded by a General named Buckus.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 21, 2007 1:01 PM

The feeling outside the beltway is that the American Washington class has betrayed the public with the Iraq War, MoveOn is just reflecting the public mood and making sure the betrayal label sticks with the War Party and its leaders. This is why the right wing monkeys are so desperate about this; the truth is political cyanide for them. So they are trying the old stab in the back routine, but for many reasons including a lack of the draft and no general social unrest, that right wing idea just won't have any traction outside the 27%ers minds and the gullible traditional media pundits who think the right are 'real murika'

The 70% American voting majority that the Dems are going to build their landslide off of are already with MoveOn, all they really want to see is some fire in the belly from Democratic leaders. Interstingly, Hillary gets it, which to be honest surprised the hell out of me. If you don't fight back you can't win and if you shoot your base you lose ground, and trust me at 3 million middle class educated members, MoveOn is an important chunk of the Dem base. All demonization attempts of Movon are just so much politiking BS from Republican operatives. MoveOn is as American as apple pie, part of the 70%ers.

When congressional dems realise all this and act accordingly they will get their approval numbers back. Until then, leadership seems to be shifting very quickly to the Dem presidential candidates.

Posted by Northern Observer | September 21, 2007 1:03 PM

Who are the people this ad is going to offend? I don't know if this ad helps, but I really can't see how it hurts.

Right. And I, the Republicans, the Dem politicians, and various Dem-friendlies in this thread, are claiming that such people do exist, and therefor it hurts or could have hurt Dem chances to control the govt. You might be right, we might be right. But that disagreement of fact is controlling.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 1:04 PM

Is there any actual evidence that the MoveOn ad had an negative effect on public opinion? I haven't seen anyone bother to bring any forward. It's really astonishing that so many Democrats leaped to that conclusion.

If there isn't, it was a good ad. As I said, the predictable screams from the media and the Republicans should be taken as evidence that the ad was a good one.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 1:06 PM

Treason requires puposely working to help the enemy. I am not accusing Petraeus of that and I think you would be hard pressed to accuse MoveOn of that. If Petraeus had testified, put both sides on the table in a fair way, and said I still think we should follow the course I have laid out, I'd have absolutely no problem with that and I wouldn't have criticized him a bit. I may not have agreed with him, but I wouldn't have criticized him because military commanders are expected to make their best recommendations. I would never accuse a military officer of betrayal for making a bad decision. That happens all the time.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 1:06 PM

"There is no such thing as bad publicity"

I know what MoveOn.org is, and clearly every commenter on this thread has a pretty good idea of what it is and where it is coming from. And I know who General Petraeus is and what his three previous roles were and I suspect most people who read Matt on a daily basis would score pretty high on that score as well.

But the Inside the Beltway decision that "Betrayus by MoveOn" is going to launch some huge backlash assumes that the public by and large knows who is Petraeus is and what MoveOn does. I am not sure that is such a good bet, it is not like the MSM has been doing such a bangup job of educating the public on any of this to start with.

One question is whether the American people by and large are so invested in Generals as to care. Soldiers on the ground? Well yeah. Soldiers IN the ground? Hell yeah. Generals who only leave air-conditioning if surrounded by squads of civilian mercenaries? Well we'll see. Somehow I fail to recollect a whole bunch of backlash when Cheney and Wolfowitz simply dismissed the professional judgement of the Chief of Staff of the Army. Who by my count had the same count of stars and the same amount of medals as Petraeus. Didn't help General Shinseki.

As for MoveOn, well their visibility just went way up, and as noted their spokesman was all over the networks in the last few days and in my opinion smoking the hapless wingnuts they put up against him and for that matter Wolf Blitzer as well.

Time will tell but from my corner of the US it looks like the MSM just bit at that tasty lure and has found itself hooked. It would be different if the MoveOn people generally visibly looked like steroetypical DFHs, instead anyone who tuned in the Situation Room probably concluded 'That makes sense'.

It is one thing to demonize Ward Churchill when Bush numbers were in the 90s. Demonizing an anti-war organization whose position is backed by 60% plus of the American people? Not so easy. I checked the MoveOn site a little while ago. They don't seem worried.

Posted by Bruce Webb | September 21, 2007 1:09 PM

Critizing MoveOn for their ad is allowing oneself to be played for a sucker. The ad was a perfectly appropriate message in these dangerous times. The military brass is obligated to provide unvarnished, professional advice to the civilian leadership which is its master. There was ample evidence, widely publicized before Betrayus' testimony, that his presentation would be utterly flawed and biased in favor of the administration's policies. Moveover, Betrayus already played politics when he tried to affect the 2004 election with his ridiculous Washington Post op-ed, in which he hyped all the wonderful progress in Iraq.

There is tremendous human misery in Iraq these days. And a little outrage on the part of the progressive elements of society against those who work to perpetuate the war, is not morally condemnable.

Repuglicans have every reason to take umbrage with MoveOn - their ad was based on uncontrovertible and damning facts. MoveOn, and every American, has every right (maybe even a duty) to critizise him and every other enabler of our continuing national disaster.

Posted by Michael S. | September 21, 2007 1:11 PM

Olbermann stepped up on TV and said all the right things. Bush used Petraeus as a shill in a way that dishonored Petraeus's uniform. He developed this idea in some detail. He also pointed out that wingers have not been at all shy about smearing military men when it's useful for the to do so.

One thing I will never understand is why it's the best educated, most professional Democrats who are most hopelessly inept and cowardly in dealing with public opinion.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 1:13 PM

SomeCallMeTim:

All I'm saying is that those people haven't been moved for two years by right-wing talking points. Why do you think this one is going to be the deal-breaker? You could be right, but I'm trying to keep this objective and take the fear all Democrats have felt over the last few years out of the equation. Based on the best evidence we have, polls, this stuff is not working anymore. People hate this war and know that Republicans will not end it.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 1:14 PM

It is time to stop talking about this forever.

Posted by Jason C. | September 21, 2007 1:17 PM

People hate this war and know that Republicans will not end it.

Which was true well before the ad. We also know--though I can't point to anything, I recall it being polled--that people really, really like the military. Which is it's important to be careful with our language about military people. Particularly during an active war. This, I suspect, is one of those things that either seem self-evident or is never-evident.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 1:21 PM

"2. A betrayal of trust or confidence."

So a vote of no confidence, or claiming somebody is lying is the same as accusing them of treason?

Posted by JordanT | September 21, 2007 1:24 PM

Petraeus is Petraeus, not the military. Bush is hiding behind a general, and the general is hiding behind "the troops". Surely it's possible to get behind that kind of thing, instead of caving in immediately. The Republicans, as I've said, are completely willing to criticize generals.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 1:24 PM

Jesus, I can't believe democrats are even debating this!

Democrats are gonna have to stand up and lead the debate. Stop being pussies and speak the truth! Patraeus DID betray us!! That bullshit he spouted last week should have been ripped to shreds by the Democratic leaders.
After 4 years of war where we've been told all these lies about the successes in Iraq and we're debating about a fucking ad!?!?! All of you that are criticing MOVE.ON need to decide what they are really objecting to. Do you want to end the war? If yes, you should want to do anything you can to end it. This whiny ass, "OMG! he called Petreaus a bad name" shit has to end. Grow some balls people.

Posted by D. | September 21, 2007 1:27 PM

SomeCallMeTim:

Like Bruce Reed said above, people really care about the soldiers on the ground and I think they are not going to be happy with anyone, military or not, who stands in the way of them coming home. Back at the start of the "surge" I think you would have had more of a case.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 1:27 PM

Right on, D.

Posted by Michael S. | September 21, 2007 1:31 PM

The end result of this whole escapade is that MoveOn has been painted as a radical, whacko, anti-American organization that can't be trusted. They were even condemned by the Senate.

MoveOn is a large group and will have a lot to say, no doubt, in the next election cycle. The right wants nothing more than to destroy their credibility and their legitimacy.

The Senate Dems who voted to condemn the ad played right into the Republican's hands.

Now, that was dumb.

Posted by JJF | September 21, 2007 1:33 PM

. Surely it's possible to get behind that kind of thing, instead of caving in immediately.

Again, no one's saying you can't attack Bush or Petreus. They're saying that there are better and worse ways of doing so, and "Betray Us" was worse. As I said above, if you have to explain a joke, it's a shitty joke, no matter how clever and insightful it is. That people predictably have to offer a defense of "Betray Us" is a tell.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 21, 2007 1:33 PM

SomeCallMeTim:

IMO, I think Democrats could stand to be a lot less careful in what they say and how they say it.

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 1:35 PM

"That said, I'm staggered by the amount of emphasis that people inside this town are placing on this."

I'm staggered at the amount of emphasis the netroots are placing on it. Who cares? Lots of pyrotechnics to be sure, but the situation on the ground in both Washington and in Iraq remains the same. People have grossly elevated symbolism over substance.

Posted by Korha | September 21, 2007 1:37 PM

Do you want to end the war? If yes, you should want to do anything you can to end it.

D., who do you think is disagreeing with that? The question is whether the ad helps or hurts efforts to end the war. Doing "anything" doesn't include doing things that actually work against your goals.

Your anger is understandable, but letting your anger guide you isn't always the most effective way to win in politics.

And I agree with JJF, though to be fair MoveOn had already been pretty well painted that way already.

Posted by KCinDC | September 21, 2007 1:46 PM

I assume that the 22 Democrats who supported the measure are co sponsoring a statement condemning the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for their statement:

"It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."

It is unthinkable that such an accusation of betrayal against a fine officer could go uncondemned by the Senate.

Posted by Njorl | September 21, 2007 1:46 PM

Matt,

There's an objective test to see whether the "Betrayus" ad was dumb or not: just track MoveOn's fundraising. My prediction: they will raise more money than ever before; much of this money will come out of money that would otherwise go to groups like the DSCC, who will then be in the position of begging MoveOn for help.

Face it, the only reason Congress's approval rating is as high as it is is that so many Republicans approve of Congress now.

Posted by Joe Buck | September 21, 2007 1:48 PM

KCinDC:

Again, how will this ad hurt our chances of ending the war?

Posted by map | September 21, 2007 1:49 PM

The Democratic inability ever to get angry or to show anger is one of the things that make voters think they're gutless wimps. The cool, cagy technicians have ruined the party. It didn't use to be this way.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 1:51 PM

And because Left blogs apparently are not allowed to criticize each other or Move On, it has worked like a charm.

Sorry, Armando, but nothing "worked like a charm."
The ad was inconsequential.

Posted by Cheeto | September 21, 2007 1:53 PM

"Backing down, condemning your own supporters, and apologizing for tough talk just makes the Democrats look the the emasculated wimps they are being portrayed as."

Yes, it makes them look like the kind of people you wouldn't trust to run a country, and it moves the window tot he right.

"I'm staggered at the amount of emphasis the netroots are placing on it."

If "it" is the Democrats capitulating in the Senate, then "it" deserves focus, because "it" is part of a pattern of miscalculation and appeasment by the Democratic leadership over the past 9 months. What do they have to show for any of their concessions? An %11 approval rating?

Posted by Michigander | September 21, 2007 1:55 PM

"One virtue of having moved to the Beltway is ... a huge blunder of world-historical proportions."

You know what, Matt; these kinds of statements are bullshit! The press and pundits have been pulling this "if you only knew what my sources told me" crock of absolute fucking stinking pile of horseshiting crap for too long now.

What we are left with is your opinion of someone else's opinion of something or other someone mentioned at the latest black tie affair. You may call it informed opinion, I call stupid fucking GOSSIP!

I obviously don't know your "friends" or these "people", nor do I know what super-secret polling you did to come up with the absolute certainty that the "establishment" is having a conniption fit about the Move-On ad. But, unless you're willing to name names (so I can write them a nasty letters and tell them to get their heads out of their asses), instead of breathlessly posting these "well researched facts" that do little more than remind people how out of touch everyone in DC actually is, maybe you should just keep this stuff to yourself and leave the "reader" to their blissful ignorance.

Posted by Rihilism | September 21, 2007 2:00 PM

This vote by the Democrats was shameful. I'll follow them through one more election cycle, because I feel it's really important for many reasons to reclaim our government, but if they keep responding as such spineless cretins, they'll lose my support.

Hooray for Hillary, at least, for standing up for her own. She knows what it's like to be the target unjustly.

Posted by jnfr | September 21, 2007 2:00 PM

It seems pretty clear to me that if there'd been no MoveOn ad, the Wurlitzer would have found something else to be outraged about --- something some Democratic politician said that could be taken out of context and distorted, some question asked of Petraeus, some line buried deep in an ignored diary on DailyKos.

Yep. Guess the Dems still haven't learned from the Swift Boat Big Lie. How could they? It's only been THREE FUCKING YEARS!!!!!!

I expect that, outside of right-wing nutjob land, this whole thing would have blown over in a day or two. Except, of course, the Dems had to kick THEIR OWN constituents by condemning the ad. Yeah, those Beltway Dem "strategists" are sure earning their salaries.....

I really think it's crucial that the Republicans get a thorough, traumatic stomping in the next election. The GOP represents nothing but pure toxin; it needs some severe shock therapy. So it is absolutely heart-rending to watch the Dems prove, week after week, that they simply aren't up to the job.

Posted by sglover | September 21, 2007 2:08 PM

Fact is, the Dems are phony opposition to the establishment who clearly want to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely.

The MoveOn flap of course is bullshit, but it's exactly the silly type of fake controversy that the media loves to talk about endlessly.

Posted by Alexander | September 21, 2007 2:17 PM

The irony is, if the beltway dems had displayed any semblance of a backbone, the moveon add would have been completely unnecessary (or a non-story if they did run it anyway). They have only themselves to blame for this being the story because they've failed to take control of the situation.

Posted by Lee | September 21, 2007 2:18 PM

The MoveOn ad is niggling contrarian bullsh*t as the Washington Post Fact-Checker pointed out---so it's inaccurate.

It's also hyper-inflammatory---great to the dumb commenters on this thread who believe all publicity is good, even if bad.

It upset the Dem applecart by allowing the Repub supporters of the war to finger-point stupid allegations of treason against a great military officer---despicable, but then Soros & MoveOn are generally despicable and worse than despicable on occasion.

Treasonous, in fact.

Posted by daveinboca | September 21, 2007 2:28 PM

Thank you for responding, Dave. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 2:36 PM

Next time you are talking with some of the "left of center" types who are angry at Moveon's ad, try relating some of the red hot anger I feel about the willful powerlessness of the Democratic caucus. Every single friggin' time, they allow themselves to be backed into a corner by a bunch of Republicans who care about nothing except their own power.

The next time a Democrat is called on to renounce MoveOn, try this on for size: "I'll make a statement about MoveOn only after your news organization asks Republicans what they think of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. Until then, no dice." Is that so hard?

It is now clear that Republicans got us into an intolerable mess, and that the oh-so-nice centrist Democrats are just too damn polite to do anything about it. Give me MoveOn anyday.

Posted by ESaund | September 21, 2007 2:39 PM

Your anger is understandable, but letting your anger guide you isn't always the most effective way to win in politics.

So when do we get angry? When 10,000 U.S. soldiers die? When we kill a million more Iraqis? Our leaders should be angry as hell because the war is wrong. The anger is misplaced at moveon.org when it should be directed towards the President. That's the problem, the president's policies should be attacked by all our leaders, not just moveon.

And Lee is right, if the dem leadership had the balls to stand up to Bush's manipulation of the military, then the ad would have been unnecessary. The ad exists because there's a leadership vacuum.

Posted by D. | September 21, 2007 2:40 PM

Hey, Michigander, you make damn good sense! This former Detroiter's glad to see that good sense still lives in the Great Lakes State!

One thing I will never understand is why it's the best educated, most professional Democrats who are most hopelessly inept and cowardly in dealing with public opinion.

You think you might be answering your own puzzle, there? I wonder how many of these "best educated, most professional" ever deviated a millimeter from the Good University --> Plush Organization Job track? I doubt many of them ever spent much time working in a factory, or living off a service sector wage, on in military service.

Maybe our courtiers are as crimped and intellectually inbred as those of any Ottoman palace?

Posted by sglover | September 21, 2007 2:40 PM

The reason the Democratic Establishment is in such a fix is that it really wasn't the General who betrayed us, it has been the Establishment itself.

The unwritten, "wink, wink," agreement in DC was that everything would be on hold until September when Petraeus would give his report, which would provide everyone with CYA to wait "six more months."

Of course, in six months, there would be some more CYA.

The reason Petraeus was so sacrosanct was not that he was a general but because he was everybody's figleaf.

I do hope that everybody on this list has contributed to MoveOn. Its past time that the Establishment was simply given the finger.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | September 21, 2007 2:41 PM

And MoveOn will use those contributions to do what? Influence the Establishment?

Posted by Michael S. | September 21, 2007 2:50 PM

Korha, I think you are right to say: "People have grossly elevated symbolism over substance." But since this is the reality, the further question is: why? I think it is because, on the level of substance, nothing is happening. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out. The majority of Americans want withdrawal - up to complete withdrawal - by the end of next year. But the political system has operated here, as it has operated elsewhere, to block the will of the majority. For years, the will of the majority hasn't even counted in D.C. - the only majority that counted was the one among the network of the 'serious' people. We have two worlds, one consisting of those in the D.C. bubble and its constituency, radio talk show and Fox news listeners, who constitute well below a quarter of the American populace; and an American populace, and indeed a world populace, that is discouraged to the point of low intensity madness by the inability of this bubble to either adapt to reality or in any way admit its mistakes. Thus, the vote in Congress, while symbolic, was also substantive - it was, in a sense, the merger of talk radio culture and DC culture at its most rancid. Even if you actually think that MoveOn was wrong, the idea that the Congress should respond immediately to an advertisement on the same day that it casually refusing to vote on substance - Webb's well thought out plan to save the military from totally crumbling by reforming the crazy cycle of extending troop employment in Iraq - gives us a symbol that is a symptom. The dysfunction in the political system is not going to be solved by voting Democratic as long as the D.C. bubble encloses the leadership of both parties, and has such a dominance in the only forum where these things are discussed, the media.

Posted by roger | September 21, 2007 2:54 PM

"the left-of-center establishment is being restrained in terms of expressing its absolutely fury at MoveOn over this. People seem to really think that this was not merely a misstep, but a huge blunder of world-historical proportions." -MY

Then the left-of-center establishment in DC, which can summon "absolute fury" over this, but won't do jack-fucking-shit to *stop* the war, or to *stop* Bush from pissing on the Constitution, are a bunch of brainless and impotent pussies.

(I *was* going to say, they're fucking retarded, but "fucking" implies some agency, which they've forfeited, and "retarded" is abused as an adjective of disdain)

But I have to thank them, because they've removed any leftover doubt about what they are, and what to expect from them.

Posted by Chris | September 21, 2007 3:04 PM

OMG, I did take too much acid! It's a total 60s flashback!

Yes, incredible as it may sound, there once was a time when people would tell you they thought it was time to bring the troops home, but they were opposed to protesting against the war because they "wanted to be effective".

And that might have worked, if the Republicans hadn't sabotaged the 1968 Paris Peace talks, but as it worked out the really huge marches took place after the election of Nixon, and Nixon signed peace agreements shortly after the North Vietnamese shot down 10% of our strategic bombers in a week.

Of course, we'll never know, but I'm guessing that some of the people who "wanted to be effective" lost their patience and joined the marchers after a few years of Nixon.

Posted by serial catowner | September 21, 2007 3:14 PM

And MoveOn will use those contributions to do what? Influence the Establishment?

Hopefully they'll publish more ads.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | September 21, 2007 3:58 PM

How about looking at the conservative over-reaction to the ad as a defensive maneuver to bolster Bill O'Reilly's jihad against MoveOn? At some point, the wingers need to justify the claims that MoveOn is a radical organization about to subvert the constitution, murder kittens and take candy away from babies. They need stuff like this to keep their delusions intact. Best to ignore it--or better--laugh at their ridiculousness. Is this all they've got?

Posted by danimal | September 21, 2007 4:13 PM

How about looking at the conservative over-reaction to the ad as a defensive maneuver to bolster Bill O'Reilly's jihad against MoveOn? At some point, the wingers need to justify the claims that MoveOn is a radical organization about to subvert the constitution, murder kittens and take candy away from babies. They need stuff like this to keep their delusions intact. Best to ignore it--or better--laugh at their ridiculousness. Is this all they've got?

The conservatives are, of course, full of it and posturing.

But that is not the problem.

The problem is with the Democrats. For it is the Democrats who have, and shall "betray us." Do you think that - for example - they will be any firmer on healthcare or a host of other issues? If so, prove it - on the basis of what they - in fact - have actually done and not upon the basis of some wishful dream of what they might do if only...

And don't tell me they "don't have the votes." They had the votes for this resolution and for FISA.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | September 21, 2007 4:23 PM

One virtue of having moved to the Beltway is that I can tell you, the reader, a thing or to about the mood here and that while you might think the reverse is true, the truth of the matter is that the left-of-center establishment is being restrained in terms of expressing its absolutely fury at MoveOn over this.

Thanks for settling something. I had wondered why the American so-called left were such a pathetic bunch of losers. The above passage explains it perfectly. The effect on the country itself, as measured in polls, was at worst neutral; the Thugs howled bloody murder. And the "official" left pissed itself. What a useless bunch of wankers.

American reform will begin when American progressives do to the Beltway "left" what the colonists did to the British tea at Boston.

Posted by sunsin | September 21, 2007 4:24 PM

Silly MoveOn. All they had to do was frame their criticism of Petraeus in a respectful, constructive way, and they would have gotten a fair hearing. You know, something like this.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 21, 2007 4:30 PM

I posted most of the following on Salon in reaction to a Joan Walsh column, but it applies equally to many of the MoveOn detractors and centrist practitioners of suicidal strategery commenting here:

Let me just say right now that all of you who have a problem with the MoveOn ad are a big bunch of pussies. There are more diplomatic ways to phrase it, but I'm not afraid of the pussified wing of the Democratic party so I'll just say what I think and what is the truth: you're all a bunch of pathetic pussies -- and that is exactly how the people you are trying to impress perceive you.

You think you're currying favor with someone, getting some kind of credit for kissing someone's ass, but you're not. That's what makes this whole episode so freaking pathetic on your part. The war hawks look at you scurrying for cover and what do they think? Do they think, "oh, there's that Joan Walsh [note: fill in the blank with whatever anti-MoveOn ad commenter's name you wish]. She's a lefty but I have basic respect for her because she has basic respect for the military."

Bwahahahahahahaha. No, they DON'T think that. They think, "God those lefties are such a bunch of pussies. They're afraid to stand up for their own beliefs. I love fucking with these pathetic losers and I'm going to fuck with them even more the next time."

There is nothing wrong with the MoveOn ad. They successfully predicted Petraeus' betrayal. They went out on a limb to predict it, but they turned out to be right so no one has the right to complain.

Petraeus allowed himself to be used as a propaganda tool and attempted to commit a premeditated act of misleading the democratic populace on a grave matter of war and peace. And when you put that act in its proper context of an illegal, immoral war, launched on a hoax, leading to war crimes, huge financial cost, a million dead Iraqis, thousands of dead Americans, lie after lie after lie after lie, the fact that you are out there defending yet another lie about the war is utterly fucking pathetic.

What is wrong here is that Petraeus' little performance is yet another in along train of government officials getting up and lying to our faces abot the war. We don't have to put up with that. No self-respecting citizen has any patience with that kind of crap. Attacking MoveOn is a classic case of attacking the messenger. And those who attack the messenger are those who can't handle the truth.

But there is more context which underscores how utterly pathetic the pussified wing of the Democratic party is. The Republicans have been calling us traitors and terrorist synpathizers 24-7-365 since 9-11. They called John Kerry and Max Cleland traitors. But WE have to watch what WE say!!!!!!

You know there is a lot of interesting analysis going around the blogosphere in recent years about the right wing authoritarian personality complex. I'm thinking more and more we need a complementary analysis of the left wing submissive personality complex.

They're telling you to sit down and shut up and you're saying, "Please sir, can I have another?"

All of you MoveOn haters: Get off your knees. Stop acting like punks. All the basic principles of your country are being perverted right before your very eyes. Get some guts for goddsakes.

Posted by The Fool | September 21, 2007 4:35 PM

Moves are only 'dumb' if they cost you something. There is this bizzarre belief among men of Yglesias's class that Americans like generals. They don't really like them, and they don't really trust them.

Polls have borne me out here. The move-On ad didn't do anything to harm anti-war efforts. What matt means is that he finds it distasteful. That may well be, but it wasn't 'dumb'. Everyone arguing otherwise really needs to find better reasons to think so than their own personal reaction to it. The American people have had no such reaction.

Posted by Soullite | September 21, 2007 4:43 PM

Soullite.

"Polls" are the most over-rated scam in the leftie quiver of quackery.

Actually, Americans ADORE generals compared to what they think about niggling contrarian snarks like you.

Posted by daveinboca | September 21, 2007 5:03 PM

You know someone is really just completely beaten down when they actually anticipate how their opponents will lie about them and alter their speech behavior in anticipation of their opponent's lies.

If we have to refrain not only from saying anything wrong but from saying anything that the Republican extremists can construe as wrong, then there isn't much we're going to be able to say.

Stop acting like whipped dogs.

Posted by The Fool | September 21, 2007 5:06 PM

I, along with anyone paying attention, knew when the Dems caved on the Iraq Supplemental that it was a done deal until 2009. The desperately hopeful people saying otherwise at the time never had any basis for their belief that this would all be "revisited" later in the year, and have been proven completely wrong by events. Personally, I think a "done deal until 2009" means a done deal for a considerable amount of time thereafter, whether the next President is Hillary or Fred (or pick your nutjob Republican candidate). The same "cower in the corner" dynamic that motivates the Democratic leadership now will continue to do so in 2009. Having won the Presidency by sitting still and being very quiet, it seems very unlikely that the Democratic President will be inclined to fuck up the midterms or the 2012 Presidential election by suddenly acting vertebrate on the issue of Iraq (or Iran, or the imperial executive).

Posted by Jeff in Texas | September 21, 2007 5:21 PM

Just in case I didn't emphasize this enough in my long post a few posts upthread, let me reiterate:

All of you who have a problem with the MoveOn ad are a big bunch of pussies.

Posted by The Fool | September 21, 2007 5:34 PM

Let me just say right now that all of you who have a problem with the MoveOn ad are a big bunch of pussies.

I respectfully disagree. The overwhelming majority of those who say they have any sort of problem with that ad are mendacious liars.

it seems very unlikely that the Democratic President will be inclined to fuck up the midterms or the 2012 Presidential election by suddenly acting vertebrate on the issue of Iraq (or Iran, or the imperial executive).

By 2012 the Iraq / Iran situations will have resolved themselves because the insurgency will have become so strong that the US will have been forcibly expelled; because the Chinese no longer will be lending us any money; or both.

Posted by Murphy | September 21, 2007 5:36 PM

As I said above, if you have to explain a joke, it's a shitty joke, no matter how clever and insightful it is. That people predictably have to offer a defense of "Betray Us" is a tell.

As you often do, you get to the heart of the conventional Democratic mindset: If something is going to predictably be attacked, the conventional wisdom goes, then it ought not be said.

That's the thinking that put us here today. Think about all the people not saying things in 2003 for precisely this reason. If nobody - not even regular citizens' groups like Moveon - is permitted to directly contradict a general, then we've given up at the outset and there's not really any point to having the debate at all.

Posted by politicalfootball | September 21, 2007 5:39 PM

Thank you for responding, Dave. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 5:49 PM

People seem to really think that this was not merely a misstep, but a huge blunder of world-historical proportions.

In this way, the Beltway acts very much like an (incredibly dysfunctional) family, whether the "Thanksgiving Dinner" kind or the "Legitimate Businessman" kind. Either way, if some outsider dares to point out the screwed up dynamic at work, the family springs into action - against the outsider! How many battered women publicly deny any abuse occurring, because they know what awaits for them at home if they don't?

It's the exact same thing going on with "left-of-center" establishment. They're pissed because all their Republican "family members" they have to deal with on a regular basis are going to attack them. They're going to have to once again take the abuse and plead for forgiveness, and they're resentment is not going to be against the Republicans actually doing the beating, but those bastards at Move On for getting the Republicans so mad! Like the Corleone said, "Never take sides against the family."

Posted by a1 | September 21, 2007 6:42 PM

I didn't think much either way when the NYT ad was published. Then the panty-wadders started having cows.
My mind flashbacked to Swift boats. Typical republican hypocrisy.

Then, after the brickbats, MoveOn stood its ground and proceeded to release more TV ads attacking W and Teh G-man. In a month or so, when it's the SOSO in Iraq, the feigned indignation of the tighty-righties will be an embarrassing whimper.

The Rabid Right is over-playing its hand here, as is the MSM. There are still many of us who value the rights of free speech and the freedom of a vigorous press over the partisanship of a reactionary few.

Posted by magisterludi | September 21, 2007 6:46 PM

The debate misses some key points regarding what norms the American public, our elected leaders expect.
We set America up as a Republic, we wanted separation of powers and wanted some organizations to be as independent from politics as possible, or from repercussions by politicians.

The most famous is that group is the Press - which can be yelled at, but powerlessly, by politicians.

We, from the outset, wanted some services to be free as possible of politics. We didn't want the Postal Service to be staffed by Party People delivering mail services preferentially to Federalists 1st. We followed the English tradition that judges and civil servant rank and file should be apolitical, and in return for that, their position would not be undermined by attacks on their integrity - which of course would force them into inserting themselves and their office into politics to defend themselves.

So it is unthinkable that politicians would ever get away with attacking the Civil Service and advocate throwing out all the bastards and replacing them with loyal Democrats/Republicans that please the dominant Party at the time.

The military is even more of a special case. Because they have more power to take power, so to speak.
We thus have a little deal...the military is under control of elected civilian officials and they don't become elected civilian officials themselves while still serving. No juntas.
In return for that, politicians pledge, that they will not impugne the intergrity of the troops.

The problem is the Far Left began violating this structure during Vietnam, as Marxist theory holds that the military MUST become politicized. And over the years since then, have regularly slimed the troops, impugned their honor, attempted to interfere with various military duties, like blocking recruiting, assisting deserters, and banning officer training.

And the Left's great conceit is their presumption that like them - elite Jews or Gentiles - the rest of the country shares their hatred and contempt of the Czars troops, the evil tools of big oil, the brainless little children duped into serving in Iraq. Ilai (Eli) Pariser is no exception, nor are his Moveon.org billionaire sugar daddies like Soros, Bing, Ira Glasser, Neier, Peter Lewis - no experience in the military, still think of them as Cossacks.

But the vast population of Americans see all departments of liberal Great Society welfare and the very culture of those poor who were supposed to benefit from other's money so much - break down in Katrina. The only agencies that seemed to work for the parasites were Christian charities, the US Coast Guard rescue, and the troops of General Russell Honore` kicking ass and restoring order.

And it is no surprise that those Americans hold church charity and the military in far higher regard than Bush, Congress, the idiots under Blanco, the idiots under Nagin, the abilities of all those well-stuffed Gov't welfare agencies. And past Katrina. They hold troops in far higher regard than journalists, far higher than the Jewish-Gentile elites...

Take the military on at your peril, Moveon.
Same with taking on Christians...

Posted by Chris Ford | September 21, 2007 9:14 PM

Thank you for responding, Chris. Your comment is very important to us. Please do not hesitate to comment again.

Posted by John Emerson | September 21, 2007 9:54 PM

I'm with Alan, who wrote way upthread:

If the ad scares the bejeejus out of both side[s] they must be doing something right.

Yep. If the ad has the Republicans, the Bush Dogs, and all the courtiers at Versailles on the Potomac clutching their pearls and saying what a disaster it was, then MoveOn has pissed off the right people.

"We love them for the enemies they have made."

Posted by lambert strether | September 21, 2007 11:04 PM

Lemme see if I've got this straight:

2002: The idea of going to war in Iraq is broadly popular, so Democratic Senators including Clinton and Edwards vote to authorize the war, and give uber-hawkish speeches in support of it.

2006: The war is no longer popular. Democrats ride a wave of anti-war sentiment to take control of the House and Senate.

2007, March: The Democratic-controlled Senate unanimously confirms Gen. Petraeus to command the Iraq effort. His mission is to try to make Iraq more stable. Democrats elect not to cut off funds and thus end the war they deceptively campaigned on ending.

2007, June: The Dem Senate Majority Leader declares defeat.

2007, July and August: Various journalists, analysts and Congressmen report signs of progress in Iraq. The lefty blogosphere in America counterattacks by attempting to undermine the credibility of the unanimously-confirmed Petraeus before his upcoming Senate testimony. Belatedly, the lefty blogosphere gets in a few shots at Crocker too.

2007, September: MoveOn takes out an unprecedented, full page political attack ad on an active duty U.S. general on the morning of his first day of Congressional testimony. Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq, and then continually voted to fund the war, but are now politically invested in its failure, are impatient with reports of progress in Iraq, however mixed, and chasten the general and the ambassador for not agreeing that the missions they signed up for are hopeless.

So here's my question: Who really betrayed MoveOn? The general who your Senators unanimously agreed to hire to try to win the war in Iraq, or your Senators who voted for the war and have continually voted to keep it going?

Wouldn't it have been smarter and more effective politically to aim that MoveOn ad at Dem Senators?

Posted by Juan | September 21, 2007 11:35 PM

MoveOn probably consists of about a half-dozen people in some NYC cubbyhole office. Amusing that it has transfixed the entire Republican Party and beltway media.

Posted by bob h | September 22, 2007 8:36 AM

As I wrote elsewhere (and thanks to this forum for helping me get to this point):

"Merely" symbolic though the MoveOn events may have been, nevertheless the conclusion I draw is that the regular Democrats get no money from me. MoveOn gets money, individual candidates, especially primary challengers to Bush Dogs, get money. Net candidates get money. Rahm Emmanuel gets no money. If a lot of people are thinking the same way, that’s not insignificant. Nor is the second conclusion that many drew: That the 2006 elections at most slowed the onrushing disaster that the Conservative movement, in the person of George Bush, is organizing for the country, and did not reverse it. So, Hill staffers, if any of you are reading this, the silence you’re hearing is probably because we’ve concluded your boss is a useless tool.

Posted by lambert strether | September 22, 2007 10:24 AM

Move On hit the nail on the head. Bush used the general as a political hack. The 'General Betrayus' is right on.

The right wing slime machine has gone into over drive. They as usual cannot tolerate being forced to face the truth when caught 'gaming the system'

Posted by Grover Syck | September 22, 2007 12:27 PM

If most Americans supported the war and were inclined to trust Peteaus, the ad would have been a disaster. The distraction would have made it difficult to change people's minds. But the exact oppoisite was the case. Petreaus had a crediblity problem, and Republicans needed to sell what he had to say. Instead, they created their own distraction. Worse, nothing could have reinforced the public's suspiscions about Petreaus more than the constaint refrain that simply having doubts about him was somehow unpatriotic. Without the ad, the war supporters would have gained some ground temporarily. Amazingly, with the ad (actually thier response to the ad), they appear to have gained absolutely nothing.

Most people agree that if General Petreaus sought to mislead us about the real status of the war, then there was serious betrayal of trust. And most people think that is what happened. The suggestion that the ad was beyond the pale ane worthy of condemnation insults their intelligence.

Posted by david1234 | September 22, 2007 1:33 PM

If not for the ad we would all be complaining about the softball questions the Dems asked of the General. This vote was a cheap attempt to distract us from their laziness.

What certainly was predictable is that we would come out of the hearing looking weak and ineffectual without the ad. All the ad did was expose the truth that we are being divided by our elected officials who for one reason or another, want this war to continue. They are all so consumed by the supposed certainty of Dem wins in '08 that they think they can do anything they want as long as they can fool us into believing they don't want the war.

Of course the other possible reason for their behaviour is that they are are not smart enough to see when they are being played; they are not capable enough to build a strategy that makes the right pay a price for what they want; they are too proud to realize how cowardly and foolish they look, or are too stupid to understand why that matters.

Posted by Fr33d0m | September 22, 2007 4:00 PM

Y'all do know that Petraeus was moved to a lower-tier post after he openly disagreed with SECDEF Rumsfeld over how to fight this war ... and then moved from that post to Commanding General, MNF-Iraq by the President when the need for the course change became evident.

He is nobody's toady ...

... which is more than can be said for the many tools of George Soros I see here.

** McGovern 1972 **

Google it, Leftists ... and see your future, if you keep going down your present road.

Neither principle, prudence nor the American people supports the cut-and-run you seek ... and the grown-ups among the Democrat Party leadership know it.

Posted by Rich Casebolt | September 22, 2007 6:35 PM

I think the correct Democratic response would have been to put forth a resolution honoring Gerneral Shinseki and others in the military who put their careers at risk by not offering overly optomistic assessments to please political leaders. We could have seen wheter Republicans really respect those who serve our country in the military.

Posted by david1234 | September 23, 2007 11:38 AM

Was it Dumb? Well, yes because i know of several friends who dropped their enrollment in MoveOn because of this artle. Free, but bad publicity.

Posted by Ricardo | September 24, 2007 2:32 AM

Another reason the ad was dumb was its fundamental unfairness, which resonates negatively with most Americans. It's unfair to hit someone who can't hit back. Had MoveOn attacked an elected representative, such as President Bush, that's fair because he can hit back, or have one of his subordinates respond. Gen. Petraeus can't respond, and he can't send a colonel to lob a political attack back in MoveOn's direction.

Posted by Harry | September 24, 2007 2:41 AM

The ad was brilliant. What is wrong with you people? You need to attack these fuckers. Petraeus is a fucking liar, who is selling out the soldiers who depend on him to his political masters. Someone needs to say it.

And here are a bunch of "progressives" queueing up to slam the guys who do say it. You are at war with those people. At stake are the lives of your troops, Iraqi civilians and the people of Iran. You don't win a war by being polite about their puppets!

And Matthew, fuck the "left of centre" establishment. A bigger bunch of no-account cunts you could not wish to trip over.

Posted by Dr Zen | September 24, 2007 8:00 PM

>was dumb.

Yeah, $500,000 dumb.

By the way, every talking hole that I heard attacking the ad was a chickenhawk.

The appropriate response to every defender of the Iraq occupation needs to be a white feather thrust down their craw.

Posted by bartkid | September 25, 2007 2:33 AM