I was listening to Mark Shields and David Brooks on the PBS Newshour last night, when suddenly I did a double take. Did Mark Shields, a liberal Democrat, say what I thought he had just said? I decided to wait for the transcript before I commented. Well, now it is available. Here's Mark Shields on MoveOn and the "antiwar left" (bolding added for emphasis):
MARK SHIELDS: The activist antiwar wing of the Democratic -- I won't even call it the Democratic Party, because they're not Democrats, but particularized by MoveOn.org this week, with it's just offensive and tasteless full-page ad in the New York Times, playing a pun on General Petraeus' name, "General Betray Us."I think, in a strange way, it did two things. One, it gave the Republicans something to talk about all week, rather than trying to defend the president's policy, which many of them are uncomfortable doing. But it also may very well liberate the Democrats, that they don't -- from that antiwar base. And they say, "Look, I think there's a chance of a compromise."
Wow. It's almost like Mark Shields has decided to say the unsayable, mention the unmentionable, break several strong taboos, commit a few major "heresies," and throw down at least one gauntlet (have I missed anything here?). Heresy #1: antiwar activists are not Democrats. Heresy #2: MoveOn.org's "General Betrayus" (note the oh-isn't-it-so-clever play on Petraeus' name?) was "offensive" and "tasteless." Heresy #3: MoveOn's tactics, at least in this case, played right into the Republicans' hands, allowing them to change the subject from Bush's disastrous Iraq policy to calling Democrats non-serious, dangerous, irresponsible, etc. Heresy #4: That Democrats might now be "liberated" from "the antiwar base."
Wow, that covers a lot of ground in just two paragraphs. So what do you think? Is Mark Shields: a) totally correct; b) partly correct (if so, how exactly?); c) partly wrong (if so, how exactly?); d) totally wrong?
Right now, I'd say I'm leaning towards "b" -- MoveOn's "Betray Us" ad was a big mistake; SOME on the antiwar left (e.g., International ANSWER) are definitely not Democrats in ANSWER's case, they're Marxists, anarchists, "Free Mumia" and anti-Israel activists); the tactics and rhetoric of the antiwar left sometimes, as in this case, give the Republicans an easy opening to change the subject away from their own record of utter and complete failure. Will this "liberate" Democrats from the antiwar activists? I'm not sure, although garbage like this make me think that no Democrat, even the most anti-Iraq War like Barack Obama (or Jim Webb), can possibly win with certain "war critics."
Sometimes you learn lessons the hard way. I hope MoveOn reassses their ad campaign strategy henceforth.
My question is, regardless of whether or not MoveOn.org's ad was or was not unacceptable, why did not some one point out that it was no worse than, and maybe not so bad as, the almost daily assaults on Democrats by the talk show artists like O'Rielly, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc? They never hesitate in naming "traitor" anyone who disagrees with or questions Bush, often in very salty language. "Betray-us" for Petraeus sounds exactly like something Ann Coulter would come up with--- and she may well do so once the dust settles and the General's usefulness to Bush has passed, and the falsitiy of his "independent" report is revealed just in time to blame the poor general for "losing" Iraq.
While I do believe the ad was ill-advised at the point in time it came out (the idea could have been expressed better in less inflammatory language), I think the Democratic leadership should not have rolled over and put their paws in the air. Republicans in a similar situation would have attacked back, and some so-called elder statesman on the Republican side might have said something about the ad being "'over the top' but you have to forgive the enthusiasm and passion, and maybe the ad had a point."
Move-on is an invaluable resource! It motivates the base, gets them involved, brings people to the polls! I've been a member for years, and if I didn't know better, such dismissive and disparaging comments would make me feel unwelcome here.
Moderates and pragmatists are GREAT for the country - they're statespersons, coalition-builders, problem-solvers. When I see the majority of people over at dailykos dissing someone like Mark Warner, if I didn't know better, I'd feel unwelcome there.
Why any of us would want to waste our time and energy completely dismissing any liberal or moderate activist, fundraiser, interest group, voter, or candidate is beyond me. We play right into the hands of people who want to divide-and-conquer the left that way.
As for for the General Betray-us ad, it may have backfired, or it could be an brilliant example of "any-press-is-good-press." Every time the Conservatives harped about it, they repeated the slogan. Who knows - it might've unconconsciously caused many to think a little more critically about the hearings this week.
Protests, to succeed, must attract sympathy and generate respect. By behaving the way they do, Code Pink, Moveon, and other groups like them make themselves look ridiculous. Compare their behavior to that of the civil rights marchers of the fifties and sixties. Those people had dignity and their actions generated sympathy and created allies. Moveon and Code Pink alienate people, and by doing so, they help Bush continue his war with the help of "serious people."
If Moveon ever achieves anything it is almost certainly by accident.
I just have the same uneasy feeling that cross-attack by some one on the Democratic side would have evened the score, and shown up the double standard the republicans continue to enforce.
Thank our favorite deity for Moveon. Why does everyone including RK seem to have no courage to call out those who lie to us day after day.
When someone does, they say that is bad for the Democratic Party. Sorry, the rest of nation outside of Virginia know a betrayus when they see one.
It's almost as if the national Democrats (DemNats) have been so long Inside the Beltway that they have totally accepted the basic Republican frame; they sure seem to cave in and apologize or mumble something silly every time the non-Bush side says something offensive to the Bush side, and the Bushies object. The DemNats are afraid to mix it up with the brass knuckle Republican crowd, which never hesitates to slander and attack.
If we, regardless of the details in every incident, always had some hornets roar out and return attack, maybe the republicans would occasionally hesitate before launching their broadsides... and the general public might begin to understand that there are two sides to the equation and that there is a double standard.
He swears an oath to defend our country, not GWB. And he is only covering BWBs rear. I don't think he gives a fig about what's best for our country. Petreaus own superior has had some pretty tough words for him along those lines. And yet it is suggested that Move-on Can't call it as that org sees it? The whole country has been so cussedly timid about standing up and being counted in opposition to this terrible war. It is long past time that all of us get some courage, or get out of the way. RK has not been a place for the timid or meek. What is happening to us?
Shields and the kindred Washington media folks feel threatened by netroots institutions like MoveOn and RaisingKaine.com We threaten their hegemony on opinions. Our alien opinions are undermining their once dominant voices that shape public policy.
MoveOn should continue to buy ads like the subject NYTimes concerning Petraus. I do not believe that the ad was in anyway objectionable. Those of you who squirmed when the ad was attacked by the inside Washington mob, including Shields, aught to reassess your point of view. Read the damn ad and I'm sure you will conclude that MoveOn was right on.
We should continue to be strident in expressing out opinions and in trying to form and change public policies.
"Protests, to succeed, must attract sympathy and generate respect. By behaving the way they do, Code Pink, Moveon, and other groups like them make themselves look ridiculous".
It's only been in the past few years that the Democratic Party has started to emerge from the shadow of Vietnam and it's reputation as being anti-military. It's taken us a very long time to arrive at a position from which our party leaders can argue on issues of war with any great authority. We have the respect and the concurence of the American people for our position to try to end this ill-conceived war. We're on the correct side of the argument, and we can back our position up with the voices of many elected and non-elected veterans as proof that we're just as serious about serving our country as Republicans are.
The last thing the Democratic Party needs now is a group of looney-tunes who can so very easily destroy, or at least greatly damage, our new-found reputation of respect with the American people on matters of war.
I hope the MoveOn crowd doesn't blow it for our party.
And I fear you are letting the GOP-label machine influence opinion here. Move-on began as a stop the (Clinton) impeachment move. That's hardly radical. The right-wing used false allegations to set a perjury trap for Clinton.
I keep seeing the word "radical" tagged to this group. That's nuts. And when I see our own side go in that direction, I have to scratch my head. What are we doing? Move-on isn't ANSWER and yet you seem to conflate the two--why and how I cannot imagine.
Move-on also supported Al Gore at one point. They sponsored at least one of his major speeches in 20033/4.
But the group has actually been cautious about it's tactics on opposing the war. For example, it supported a super-timid Congressional proposal.
And, so, again, I ask, "radical?" Are you kidding me? Or is that the state of things, that a sorta left-of-center group can be reclassified and labeled the enemy of even Democrats. What next?
If a group supporting Bill Clinton against impeachment is too radical for you, then why the support of Hillary elsewhere on the front page? The contradictions are amazing?
We cannot let FAUX News drive our opinions and our fears of how we'll be perceived. That's precisely why Dems haven't taken the Country back long ago.
I think Shields is "d" - totally wrong.
While I think the ad was in poor taste; and much more can be said about the general's loyalties (which appear to be to the administration, rather than to the defense of the American people) than about his name (name twisting is a particularly juvenile form of antagonism).
Having said that - I promise to give Bush and his neo-con henchmen, including fall guys like the general, exactly the same sort of respect they gave President Clinton while he was in office.
The war is evil, sadly, we the American people have already lost it to the exploiters who have walked away with billions in profits, like war-profiteers have always done. Petraeus's testimony was more embarrassingly wrong than Colin Powell's testimony that failed to win world support for this war in the first place, so while his name should not be made fun of - he has brought on himself public scorn and derision (and jokes) and I have little sympathy for him.
Shields is wrong, and MoveOn is right - even if the ad was in poor taste.
BLITZER: But no one ever said to you something like "General Betray Us," that MoveOn.org ad that caused so much -- questioned...CLARK: Absolutely not. No, no, no.
BLITZER: ... your patriotism or what your motives were. None of the Republican -- correct me if I'm wrong.
CLARK: I wish that the MoveOn people had talked to me in advance. You know, when a general's put there, he serves under the commander in chief. He's like -- you put the quarterback in halfway through the fourth period and you say, "Kid, get in there and pass the ball and win this game for us."
The quarterback's not going to come out after the first series of downs and say, "Coach, they're too big, the ball's too slippery, and take me out." I mean, his job is to produce success. It's the responsibility of the president to have the right strategy. And so this is President Bush's war. It is not General Petraeus' war.
Source: CNN transcripts
CLARK: I don't think General Petraeus is going to say anything he didn't believe, but I think that any time you're in a position of command and your responsibility is to produce a success, what you see is colored by what your mission is.And so it's up to others to bring out all those facts and to have the reasoned debate. That's why this dialogue in Congress is so important. If we had this kind of dialogue before we went into Iraq, maybe we would have made better decisions.
BLITZER: So you can disagree with General Petraeus without hurling -- calling him names.
CLARK: Absolutely. Absolutely.
BLITZER: Or questioning his integrity.
CLARK: Look, he's a guy with tremendous responsibilities. He's got 170,000 troops there. He's responsible for the lives and welfare of all those troops. He's worried about the families, the army, and, of course, he's worried about working for his boss.
BLITZER: So you admire him and you respect him, you just disagree with him?
CLARK: Well, I'm not even sure I disagree with him. He doesn't have his hand on the...
BLITZER: This operation -- he says this operation in Iraq can succeed.
CLARK: It could succeed depending on how you define success and depending on what else you bring to the mission. In other words, I don't think you're going to convert Iraq into a constitutional democracy with a picture of George Washington on the wall, no matter what Dave Petraeus does.
But I do think that if the administration went through the pattern of regional dialogue that I've been advocating for four years and actually sat down and talked with people -- I'm not talking about calling a guy in a room and saying, "Hey, we're going to knock your block off if you don't stop sending the weapons in."
That's not diplomacy. I'm talking about real diplomacy based on a set of principles. If we did that, maybe we could pull something out.
Source: CNN transcripts