Is Move-On the boggie man for this party?

[bigdarryl]

It seems the media is trying there very best to make it to be.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Laziness--easier to rip on a left-wing activist group than try to explain

what's REALLY going on with the war and everything else.

[Vincardog]

2. No the Corporate Controlled Media does not like having their Dog and Pony show

held up for the ridicule it deserves. I am a proud Move-on member.

[Joe for Clark]

3. There is no doubt in my mind - at least they had the balls to

try and do the right thing.

They had that.

Joe

[Progressive Friend]

4. All progressive groups are "boogie men" according to corporate press

[stillcool]

5. Move-On is the boggie man...

for the media, or the corporatist's....

[OHdem10]

6. The very idea that real Democrats might organize at

the grassroots frustrates the Elites and Media. These
pesky American Citizens are messing up everyones little
fake game.

[Yurovsky]

7. A good measure of your effectiveness...

is how loud the opposition screams after you do something. Obviously MoveOn.org was on to something, given the degree of the complaints coming from the radical religious right and their operatives in the "main stream" media.

I still believe Be-tray-us, lil' bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, and of course, Cheney all need to be impeached (if still in office) and then put on trial for their crimes, including genocide against the Iraqi and Afghani people. MoveOn.org is just trying to fill in the void caused by right-wing takeovers of US media.

[Breeze54]

8. Great post!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

:D

[Yurovsky]

10. thanks!*

nm

[Forkboy]

9. Depends...has someone killed Nader and not told us yet?

[Trajan]

11. I've avoided the arguments, until now ....

But let's jump in with both feet ....

It was a mistake to release THAT ad, with THAT language ....

NOT because it's conclusions are wrong or invalid, but much like what Mark Fields said today on PBS: No one takes very well to name calling like 'Be-Tray-Us' .... People have a natural dislike of those who would use personal surnames to twist into insulting references .... It is reminiscent of what bullies would do in schoolyards and playgrounds ..... Everyone has seen it in their lives, and rarely is it likable ...

It is a mistake to let these important messages slip under the radar because of obvious blunders in judgment ....

The same essential message could have been provided to the public in that ad WITHOUT the adolescent name calling .... Petraeus could have still been called to task for his statements on the Hill; by using FACTS and REASON .... There was much to say about the whole fiasco, yet that choice has muddied the waters with a juicy and titillating red herring which just may go on stinking for weeks .....

The media, as weak and as facile they are to titillation, along with the GOP, who had long been on the run on Iraq, now has an easy target which most citizens will agree with .... MoveOn provided an opening ..... it was a foolish move ...

Not only do the Democrats as a party seem to lack the ability to craft an easily digestible message for the public, but it appears the Left (unfortunately) also suffers from a lack of vision in their communications efforts.

It was a blunder by Move on, and seems to have pleased only a very few members of society .....

Being RIGHT about issues is far more important than being clever or funny in twisting someone's name into a mild insult .....

Our message is RIGHT ... WHY cheapen it with teenage taunts ?

HUGE blunder ..... They fell off their high horse .... and that's bad for all of us .....

[barb162]

12. I think that ad has not played well to most Americans. Blunder

B.I.G.T.I.M.E.

I've been talking to some people about it, centrists, independents, etal., and they were put off by it to say it mildly.

[Breeze54]

13. MoveOn was dead On CORRECT with that Ad and the EVIDENCE!!

Read it, this time!! https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

It's quite apparent that you haven't.

Yesterday, General David Petraeus misled the country.

He used faulty statistics and cherry-picked intelligence to argue that American troops should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The general said we're making major progress1—and we have to stay the course. Sadly, independent assessments show that things in Iraq have gone from bad to worse (see below for more on how Petraeus stretched the truth).

Some of you have emailed to say it reminds you of the day four and a half years ago when President Bush sent General Colin Powell to the U.N. to make a trumped-up case for war.

Powell's WMDs helped justify the invasion of Iraq, and Petraeus' version of "progress"—if it goes unchallenged—will justify keeping troops there for years. Can you take a few minutes to write a letter-to-the editor reminding folks that the "surge" didn't work—and that the responsible thing to do is bring our troops home?

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign

Petraeus based much of his assessment on the claim that violence in Iraq is dropping.2 That just isn't true:

Petraeus is using "funny math." According to the Washington Post, Petraeus and the Pentagon are using a bizarre formula for measuring violence in the country. For example, deaths by car bombs don't count.3 And assassinations count only if you're shot in the back of the head—not in the front.4

Iraqis believe the surge has failed. According to a massive new ABC/BBC poll, every single Iraqi polled in Baghdad, the primary target of the "surge," said it had made security worse. Iraqis themselves overwhelmingly think the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, in terms of security, political cooperation, the economy, and other measures. Overall, 70% think the escalation worsened rather than improved security conditions. 5
The independent GAO report found that violence is up. A comprehensive Government Accountability Office report ordered by Congress found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007."6 In August, things got worse, with civilian casualties rising according to the Associated Press7 and the Los Angeles Times.8
For our troops, it's the bloodiest summer yet. More U.S. troops died every month this year compared to the same month last year.9

Petraeus claimed that he compiled his report without conferring with the White House. But the Washington Post recently reported that Petraeus or his staff joined daily conference calls with the White House and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie this summer to "map out ways of selling the surge." The Post reported that Gillespie's White House political unit was "hard-wired" to Petraeus' military unit.10

We would all like to see life improving in Iraq. But it's not—it's getting worse. And if US forces stay in Iraq both Americans and Iraqis will pay a terrible price.

Today is the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. The wounds of 9/11 are still fresh for many of us. After 9/11, President Bush used fear, lies and trumped-up intelligence to stampede us into Iraq. Now, America is bogged down in an unwinnable civil war, and Al Qaeda has regained enough strength to once again menace the United States.11

It would be a tragic irony if, six years later, the administration used skewed intelligence to head off the growing momentum for an exit strategy from Iraq.

Please write a letter reminding America and Congress not to fall, ever again, for White House lies—we need a timeline to bring our troops home.

http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign

Thanks for all that you do,

–Nita, Karin, Laura, Eli, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, September 11th, 2007

P.S. Yesterday, MoveOn members sponsored an ad in the New York Times debunking Petraeus' claims. Click here to see the ad—and the evidence to back it up:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

The ad stirred a controversy on Capitol Hill—it accuses Petraeus of "cooking the books." And it charges that Petraeus is betraying the American peoples' trust by spinning the facts to support the White House. Some Democrats were uncomfortable with such strong language, and Republicans attacked MoveOn.

We're sure if we'd run an ad debunking Colin Powell's testimony in 2003, they would
have done the same thing—but sometimes it's important to set the facts straight.

SOURCES

1. Washington Post, "Petraeus Backs Initial Pullout," 9/11/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2958&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=5 2. Ibid.

3. New York Times, "Time to Take a Stand," 9/7/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2941&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=6

4. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=7

5. ABC News, "Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment," 9/10/07
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3571504

6. Washington Post, "Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq," 9/6/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2938&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=8

7. Associated Press, "1,809 Iraqi civilians killed in August," 9/1/07
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20543737/

8. Los Angeles Times, "Iraqi civilian deaths climb again," 9/1/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2956&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=9

9. http://www.iCasualties.org

10. Washington Post, "Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2957&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=10

11. Washington Post, "Scarier than Bin Laden," 9/9/07
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2959&id=11221-2919065-kkHvDD&t=11


PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

[Trajan]

14. They were correct in their facts ..... WRONG in their approach ....

It seems you are stuck defending the frame of the message, because I have already stated I approve of the basic essence of the message itself ....

It is the presentation of the message that was fucked up ..... Nothing in those comments you have provided shows a rational basis for using name calling as a primary communications vehicle that would have persuasive power in the public marketplace of ideas ....

The purpose of an political advertisement is to convince and persuade .... it defeats the whole purpose of even producing such an ad if your target audience dislikes the wrappings of the message itself ....

It was like gold dripping in shit ..... A great gift in an awful box ....

I'm almost surprised it didn't have a 3rd grade Groucho nose drawn on his face ....

It was a stupid move ..... They obviously need professional media consultation ....

You DON'T alienate the very audience you wish to enjoin in your cause .....

[Breeze54]

15. They didn't call names. The RW did. Get your facts straight!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1869996">Bush raises half a million for MoveOn!!

Didn't work, eh? :rofl:

[Trajan]

18. Trade your integrity for filthy lucre ?

sheeesh .... how cheap ....

BTW:

1) DID call names (My Facts are straight)

2) Bush making a half-million dollars for Move On is a different assertion than a Move On ad being roundly booed by everyday joes and janes on the street, how much did the ad LOSE ? How much could it have helped if it werent so asinine and boorish ??? ....

3) Fallacy - Argumentum ad crumenam

The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

EXAMPLE:

"Microsoft software is undoubtedly superior; why else would Bill Gates have got so rich?"


------

Im not sure what you are arguing, but I swear that you are claiming that using cheap insults in public that makes you LESS than a million dollars is a winning formula for public governance ....

Again: you seem to be missing the point: We AGREE with the message ..... it is the DELIVERY of that message that was a loser ..... and a big loser ..... You gave the GOP traction ..... and that is unforgivable .....

I am not willing to lose credence for our movement just so you can feel good about calling someone names in public .... It's fucking it up for ALL of us ...... I dont think you have that right ....

If you havent the wherewithall to ARGUE your points well, then why even bother ? ..... Maybe you arent up to the job ....

Your otherwise absolutely fallacious claims notwithstanding ....

(Insert lame ass, irrelevant emoticon here)

[Breeze54]

19. Lay off the hooch!

WoW! :silly:

[pampango]

20. The ad was great for MoveOn. It has generated lots of free publicity, donations,

and new members. It was great for Democrats (assuming people don't misidentify the party as the one who is twisting names to be hurtful) in the long run ('08) by motivating wavering GOP senators to stick with Bush and make them more beatable in the election.

The way that it hurt was in the antiwar votes this week. Analysts on both sides thought that Webb's amendment had a good chance of passing, since some repubs want to distance themselves from Bush in order to save their own hides next year. We came us a few votes short. We will never know if we would have gotten more votes without the MoveOn ad, but we know that the RW was able to whip up a frenzy about the "personal attacks" on Petraeus and undoubtedly used it to twist the arms of wavering senators to not "vote with MoveOn."

The ad has done wonders for MoveOn. It has given our base a huge boost. It has improved our electoral prospects in '08. The ad was factual and accurate. If it had avoided the name-twisting and come a day or two after his testimony, it would have been devastating in its refutation of his testimony and would have provided some post-testimony momentum in support of the antiwar bills that came up this week.

Was the ad successful? In many respects, which I outlined, yes. However, if their goal was to generate support for Webb's amendment and other antiwar legislation by weakening the impact of Petraeus' testimony, which by its timing would seem to be the case, then the judgment is more debatable.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Agree--I must've said it 100 times: bad move. They made it a really rough

couple weeks for Dems (and those few Repubs) who want to focus on ending the war--took the heat and focus off the GOP and Chimpy and gave them a weapon to use against us. When it's not your message that people pay attention to, but the ad itself, then you've failed in effective advertising.

[cali]

21. Agreed.

There was something so childish about the name calling. And cutsie. The body of the ad itself was pretty good. A different headline would have been much more effective. Sure the ad worked for MoveOn- they've raised a ton of money- but it sucked all the air out of important debates and votes in the Senate.

[TankLV]

24. aww - poor widdle demmies - can't fight the big boys... awl sacred!!!

I am so fucking sick of this shit.

MoveOn has shown how the Dems SHOULD act - got to have balls/ovaries and USE them...

so they pissed off the repukes and other assorted wussies - GOOD!

That shows we're EFFECTIVE.

I just donated ANOTHER hundred bucks to them INSTEAD of the dem party - that's the way I want dems to act - that's what I want the dems to DO!

I am so fucking tire of Vichy spinless dems who fret and worry about what others will think - the WAR CRMINALS and APPEASERS - well you know what - the people I could care less about will criticize us no matter WHAT we do...!!!

[kenny blankenship]

17. Shouldn't the Senate drop everything and censure Ted Nugent for threatening lives of candidates???

[ludwigb]

22. I will continue to defend them

I don't agree with everything they do, but I have great respect for the instincts and sense of justice in MoveOn. In one sense the attempt to flame MoveOn is a challenge--let's trot out ordinary members to defend the organization. The public is on MoveOn's side on the war.

[TankLV]

23. No! They show how the Democratic Party SHOULD act and what the Democratic Party should DO!!!

I am disgusted with the current crop of the spineless Democratic Party wimps...