Posted by The Crux |
For years, we've watched media personalities fecal-ize our nation's political debate by insulting public figures in personal and irrelevant ways. Some have stooped to attacking politicians' minor children.
Every American who's heard "spirited" political programs knows about hardball mud-slinging. Some find it distasteful, but its prevalence has rendered shock and outrage completely illogical responses to the mud-slinging.
That said, a firestorm has erupted over an ad that anti-war group MoveOn.org placed in yesterday's New York Times. The ad's title ("General Petraeus or General Betray Us?") bluntly questions Gen. David Petraeus' credibility.
Isn't Petraeus a public figure, paid by public dollars? Like every other public figure, shouldn't he expect to hear insults from some of the people that disagree with him? Right or wrong, that's been our system for years.
Our founding fathers gave all of us a right to voice political opinions (sometimes even if they clash with reality). That's what enables Bill O'Reilly to habitually state non-truths without facing liability....
Our Constitution's First Amendment often protects us when we question (or even downright insult) public figures. That's what enables Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin to habitually hurl invective at politicians with whom they disagree.
Another thing troubles me about the MoveOn firestorm: some political figures' responses.
Fred Thompson, for example, called on Democratic candidates to return any donations they got from MoveOn.org (CNN). At least Thompson's posturing makes practical sense: if he wins the primary, he'll run against a Democrat -- it'll be easier for him if the Dem's coffers have less money.
While Petraeus delivered his report to Congress yesterday, some Republicans actually called on their Democratic colleagues to apologize over MoveOn's ad (The Swamp). That's about as logical as asking congressional Republicans to apologize to John Kerry over the Swiftboat episodes.
Anyone who's paid any attention knows that no politician (or party) controls MoveOn. Just months ago, MoveOn turned against Dems with pit-bull tenacity over the war-funding bill.
It's only natural that some Republicans want Dems to apologize. These days, Ds are raising more money than Rs: if a bunch of Dems piss off MoveOn, they'll lose noticeable campaign funding and votes, which will work in their Republican opponents' favor.
Update: Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) , apparently with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's support, has introduced a resolution that condemns MoveOn's ad (The Hill-1 ) In the House, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sponsored a similar resolution (The Hill-2).
Apparenlty, some Republican politicians are using the MoveOn ad to stir Republican voters' emotions and distract them from the real (and potentially damaging) issues -- like the Iraq war, immigration reform, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, David Vitter....
The only people Dems could possibly placate by denouncing MoveOn are people susceptible to being whipped into a frenzy over this non-issue, which I suspect is a small (albeit strident) minority of Americans. The frenzy-prone minority won't vote for Dems, anyway.
Thus, it doesn't make sense for Dems to capitulate and risk losing the respect of millions of Americans who might actually vote for them.
Instead, why not answer the shrieks with a non-judgmental acknowledgment that in this free country, all citizens have the right to air their political opinions?
I personally believe no good can come from disparaging our millitary officers. We can only hope that someone like General Patreaus will accurately report what is happening on the ground as opposed to simply reflecting the views of the adminstration. However, I question whether most American's really believe that a millitary officer would ever reveal that a millitary engagement was not going well. In any case, the response from the right is overblown and not all that unusual. The real message is: don't question our millitary officers, do not question whether the information they provide is accurate, once we are at war do not question why we are at war, do not ask when the war is going to be over, do not ask how much it costs, how many are dying, or whether those we are helping might be able to help themselves. If we followed the prevailing logic to its ultimate conclusions it would mean that asking any question at all about the war would be unpatriotic and unamerican - which, of course, is nonsense. Hopefully average americans will see through the hype and ingore all the hooplah. Yes, Moveon raised some eyebrows with its blatantly suggestive ad, but as far as I can tell, we are still in Iraq and Patraeus is still doing his job. Moveon's ad should not be used as an excuse to divert attention from the real issue at hand - and that is what General Patraeus had to say.
Posted by: AVAMCITIZEN | September 16, 2007 at 01:24 AM
Avamcitizen,
I agree with your assessment. I suspect that some Bush- and war-supporters do believe that Petraeus would have admitted that the war isn't going well if that were the truth, because President Bush spent weeks telling people that Petraeus would do just that.
Posted by: The Crux | September 16, 2007 at 11:03 PM