and the Rude Pundit. And I disagree with them too.
I am not one for framing debates. Much like BooMan, I think that there is an inherent dishonesty in playing with people’s emotions and minds in order to score a political point. But that still does not change the fact that I see things that “they” are doing and could not disagree with “them” more. And my gut tells me that we have to hit meet them head on with a loud and resounding “HELL NO!” And, IMHO, that has nothing to do with framing… It has to do with reality. (more below)
The other day BooMan posted this:
I’ve been trying to find the right words to describe the MoveOn.org advertising fiasco on General Betraeus. I think The Rude One found the right balance.
Obviously, the Rude Pundit doesn’t believe in the Bob Shrum/DLC school of cautious political rhetoric, where you try real hard not to piss off the other side ’cause they might hit back. The language of inclusion, though, need not be the language of capitulation. Let’s put this in historical perspective: You’re Tom Hayden. Let the Rude Pundit and others be Abbie Hoffman. Out here in the blogworld, we can say shit like “Petraeus/Betray Us” because, well, shit, that’s what we do. Let us be the dirty fuckin’ hippies.
We need you to be mainstream, MoveOn. We need you to be the grown-up. The mainstream media is distracted by shiny objects. Don’t actually try to dangle a sparkly charm in front of them.
Yeah…basically.
Sorry dudes… I heartily disagree with both the idea and the reasoning. Here, Lakoff gives his position on this and for a change it has less to do with framing an issue, and is more about the cold hard reality:
MoveOn Ad Exposes the True Betrayers
(excerpt from page 2)“The issue is this: Who has been betraying the trust of the American people — including our troops — in bringing about the American invasion of Iraq and in continuing the occupation? What were the acts of betrayal and with what consequences? And is a betrayal of trust still going on, and if so where, how, and by whom?
I have developed a deeper look at these issues. You can read that in my new article Iraq and the Betrayal of Trust. But meanwhile, let’s talk about one of the traps we should stay out of: The Politeness Trap.
Bush took advantage of certain conventions of etiquette and politeness when he sent Petraeus to testify before Congress. Those conventions hold that one does not criticize the symbolic stand-in for the military, even when the uniform-wearing stand-in is on an overt political mission that is at the heart of the Administration’s continuing betrayal of trust. Decorum can be put to political use, and Bush did just that.
Bush was using a familiar right-wing tactic: identifying himself with a military uniform and the stature of the military in general, when he had no military stature himself. Rudy Guiliani used the same tactic in his ad in Friday’s New York Times: by associating himself with Petraeus’ rank and role, hoping some of the stature of the military would rub off on him. The implicit message is an attack on MoveOn: in pointing out Petraeus’ deception, MoveOn, so Giuliani implies, was being disrespectful of the military itself. This is a typical right-wing attack on progressives, and progressives shouldn’t stand for it. They should not be allowed to hide behind the troops. The troops themselves have been betrayed.”
Here is the political reality as I see it today:
MoveOn was right. They didn’t write any facts that most reasonable Americans would dispute. Did they use harsh words in a flaming sound byte? Yep… And rightfully so. These harsh GOP tactics deserve nothing less than to be hammered with facts.
It is an outrage that these neocon wannabes would get their panties all twisted in a knot over MoveOn pointing out the obvious and, even worse IMHO, is having some Dems run from the facts.
This “polite” political tactic may cut it with the hardcore vote-Dem-until-they-die crowd, but the rest of the political nation is going to point out the absurdities of the Dems playing this game of footsie under the table, and playing it by the GOP rules. I am very disappointed, to say the least, with the repeated wishy-washy mixed signals sent by Dems. Someone has to stand up to the bullies in the GOP, and the Dems aren’t doing it.
Forget about “Mommy” Democrats and “Daddy” Republicans and fuck thinking about the god-damned elephant and to hell with being polite about it all… The lefty-Bloggers are the ONLY adults and the Dems are the little kids that can’t/won’t fend for themselves. And, for a change, MoveOn got something right.
The truth is that all that Petraeus adds to the debate is nothing more than another layer of bush propaganda and lies, and the sooner you act on these facts the faster an honest debate on Iraq policies will begin.
Fill it up with tips and flames? đŸ™‚
Thanks for this much-needed diary. I was surprised that BooMan fell for that Rethug pro-war propaganda.
Lakoff isn’t the only one who disagrees with Booman.
Arianna Huffington: Dept. of Misdirection: With Iraq a Disaster, GOP Goes Crazy Over a Newspaper Ad
Bob Fertik at Democrats.com: A Compromise on “BetrayUs
I wouldn’t say that BooMan (or the rude pundit) fell for the republican line, but they did bite on the Democratic party line of going too far to the point of appearing to be appeasers. A line that too many Dem politicians has crossed too often. I will never follow anyone over that line.
Facts can be brutal, and the way you present them must, at times, be equally brutal to be effective. MoveOn just completed their most successful marketing program of their short history, IMHO. And they did it with a brutal, but truthful, bomb tossing, flame throwing sound byte.
Aggressive Progressives are celebrating this…
I don’t think so. I’m in touch with people at MoveOn and I am not getting any celebration on their part.
But they are going to crush Rudy with their new ad, which is great.
Who said MoveOn is an aggressive Progressive group that would celebrate? They aren’t. This is the very first time they have acted like one… They just didn’t react to the republican spin correctly, and neither did the Democratic party.
Rudy is already crushed. The fact that Thompson, after a week of doing absolutely nothing, is leading in some republican straw polls says it all about what the republicans with their yaps open are talking about being unacceptable to their base and, needless to say, to the rest of America. But, yes, their new ad is great.
“While the way the ad chose to make its points can be debated, the accuracy of those points cannot.”
More like, ‘the way the ad chose to make its points will be debate, it points will not’.
Which is why it failed.
I didn’t track the “debate” on the Web and I don’t have a TV, so I can’t say if it failed or not. But my guess would be that the reason “the way the ad chose to make its points” is what got the attention is because that was a deliberate tactic by the mainstream media to sidetrack the debate, with the usual right-wing feigned outrage.
My guess is that if the ad made its points in a less provocative fashion, it would simply have gotten ignored.
I see this as analogous to the way Howard Dean’s “scream” was handled by the media
It played like shit.
Here’s the thing…whether it is the MSM or just the Republicans, you can bet your sweet ass that they will defend a general that gets accused of treason in the New York Times. Forget the merits of that argument, which are strained…this was all predictable.
As for Howard Dean, I went to see him twice in 2003. After the second time, I turned to my friend who was a big supporter, and told him that Dean wouldn’t never make it because he was too gaffe prone, politically tone-deaf, and disliked by the press.
When The Scream came it confirmed everything I felt about him on visceral level…
Not a vehicle for our hopes and aspirations.
MoveOn needs to wise up and think first. It’s all very predictable.
You seem to think that MoveOn was damaged by this incident. (Like I said, I didn’t follow this, so I can’t say whether they were or not.) But were they? The MSM is going to portray them as weak and irrelevant and/or extremist and fanatical no matter what they do.
At least more “aggressive” Dems seem to take MoveOn a little more seriously now.
I don’t know what’s served by the Netroots saying that MoveOn made a false step. This is about controlling what kind of discourse is acceptable. I think it’s more productive to do what Ariana Huffington and Democrats.com did, which is to try to counteract the MSM spin.
If as many progressives as right-wingers got put on political TV talk shows, this wouldn’t have played like shit.
The problem isn’t that MoveOn overreached: it is that there aren’t enough progressives on TV. MoveOn might have lost “credibility” inside the Beltway, but I don’t think it did in the rest of America.
Yes, this was predictable, but this is what happens when the point of view of the Netroots seeps into the bigger public sphere. I think that we should encourage this kind of “seeping”, instead of putting pressure on organizations like MoveOn to tone down their discourse to make it palatable to the establishment.
That’s an interesting story about Dean. I was never that much into him either.
I’m not telling them to tone it down, I’m telling them to use their brains.
And I don’t change what I say so that it fits some media strategy.
the point is that we lost the battle. And I could have told you in advance that we would lose the battle. We’re in the same position we were, but now MoveOn has a whole extra sheen of radioactivity. Wishing it were not so will not change things.
And, to be specific, the ad could have been a whole lot more harsh and been fine. The problem was specifically with calling him a traitor. When MoveOn talks they have to know (and want) that good politicians will stand with them. If they know they won’t then they are being foolish.
We did? Only those that backed down from the truth lost the battle. The rest of us won.
Those who stand on the side of truth are never losers, no matter who thinks it`s foolish. A good hard slap on the face sometimes brings back to reality, one who is hysterical. If it doesn`t, keep slapping.
I don’t think MoveOn called Petraeus a traitor, they said he betrayed the trust of the American people.
The war criminal Bush is the one who has politicized the military.
But here is what Admiral Fallon called Petraeus: “a little chicken shit ass kisser.” If I were MoveOn I would have quoted Fallon.
When the war criminal Bush wants to hide behind the skirts of Petraeus and Petraeus lets him, he (Petraeus) has to face the political fall out. We all know the war criminal Bush is full of shit when he says he is listening to the military. If he had listened to the military we wouldn’t be in Iraq or we would be there with enough assets to actually control and develop the country.
oops, I have misquoted the Admiral. He referred to Petraeus as an “ass kissing little chickeshit.”
No matter where we place the words in the sentence, we can’t say it enough.
lets face it boys, when the troops rotate back home and they are taliing to their family and friends and others, and they say things likeGen. Betrayus, it sticks. Just go and listen to them for once. He is a ladder climber and he is a political ass kicker. Just like Adm. Fallon says he is. Anyhow just my two cents worth for what it is worth. This man even with all his stars is a fraud. Look at his record to see what he has actually accomplished in his career..not much until now, BTW. Just a general run of the mill ass kicker is all he has ever been…tha is and of itself is not saying very much for this mans career and them in uniform., to acutally have all the stars on his uniform.