Time to Move On?

"This is a quite common tactic used in modern day politics, and some might argue that it originated with the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign when they ruthlessly attacked John McCain in the South Carolina primary . . . To me that is 'DISGUSTING.' Then it went on to Senator Max Cleland who gave up most of his body in service to his country. We all know how they despicably attempted to put a true American patriot like Max Cleland into the same category as Bin Laden in a campaign ad for one of their fellow draft dodgers -- Saxby Chambliss. That is just as low as you can go. To me that is 'DISGUSTING.' Then came the presidential campaign of 2004 with the notorious 'swift boat veterans for truth.' . . .

"The ad from MoveOn.org against Petraeus finally woke America up to the reality of what George W. Bush has done for the last 7 years of his tragic presidency. It's just sad that no one came out on the national level in a similar manner in which they did to MoveOn.org to condemn Bush for his attacks on Cleland, Kerry, Murtha, The Democratic Party, and other patriots who wore the uniform in service to our great nation."

Hunter at Daily Kos raises the hypocrisy issue as well:

"I used to think that the Republicans were primarily little more than marvelous opportunists. Their effectiveness at 'catapulting the propaganda' over the last two decades have been astonishing, and never more so than in the last six years.

"Case in point, obviously: the MoveOn ad. The horrible, mean, cruel MoveOn ad that questioned the integrity of an Army general simply because he had a proven history of making, you know . . . intentionally misleading statements based on transparently manufactured statistics. It's still the talk of the news cycle, because Republicans are outraged -- yes, outraged! Offended! Disgusted! Repulsed! Exclamation points!! -- that such a thing would happen in politics. Not the manipulation of numbers and of evidence, mind you, that long being the standard currency of unpopular wars: no, the offense was the ad.

"The irony has not been lost on anyone, I imagine. For six years, opponents of the war have had their patriotism, their integrity, their very status as Americans questioned by Republican administration officials in their public statements, by Republican senators on the floor of the Senate, by Republican congressmen in the House, from the White House press office, in the pages and websites of every conservative and Republican rag out there, by Republican activist groups, on Republican radio programs, by Republicans holding up signs on street corners, and so on."

Melissa Ryan at MyDD can't believe the Senate voted to condemn the MoveOn ad:

"In a sea of defeats why does MoveOn stick out like a sore thumb for me? Because it was so damn pointless. What a complete waste of the Senate's time. We don't elect senators to publicly condemn statements they don't agree with. We elect them to govern."

Reviews are still pouring in about the GOP candidates who spoke to the National Rifle Association. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber"Rudy's sale seemed somewhat less than complete when I surveyed a dozen or so NRA members at lunch time. (Actually, the sale seemed less than complete even during the speech. Rudy received several rounds of polite applause, but nothing remotely approaching rapturous--or even the general warmth Fred Thompson enjoyed during his comparatively glib remarks.) Most of the people I spoke to respected Rudy for showing up, but most also found him a little weaselly. (Though one couple from Indiana did say he put them at ease enough to support him should he become the nominee.) Two things stood out to these people in particular: The first was Giuliani's repeated invocation of strict-constructionism--in Rudy's telling, the idea that it doesn't matter what he or anyone else personally thinks about guns, since the Constitution very explicitly protects the right to own one, and since a strict-construction[i]st judge--the kind he'd appoint--would affirm that right. Several people told me this sounded like a convenient fig leaf for someone who was distinctly un-passionate about gun-rights, and that they weren't particularly reassured by it.

"The second stumbling point was the lawsuit Giuliani initiated against gun manufacturers in 2000, which has just now reached a federal appeals court. When asked about this during the Q&A that followed his speech, Rudy said the lawsuit had subsequently moved in a direction he didn't agree with. He then retreated to the safer terrain of the D.C. gun-ban decision and 9/11, stressing again that they'd influenced his thinking since 2000. What he didn't do was concede that the lawsuit had been a mistake. To the contrary, Giuliani defended his initial decision to pursue it, framing it as just another instance of him using every method at his disposal to reduce crime. This, too, stuck in the craw of a lot of the NRA members I talked to. Several told me they wished he'd just admit the lawsuit had been misguided, rather that rationalize it and distance himself from it after the fact."

TPM's Steve Benen is puzzled by the good press that Newt Gingrich has drawn recently as a Big Thinker:

"Sure, some of us may think of the former Speaker as the ethically-challenged, unhinged conservative who shut down the government (twice) and was driven from Congress by his caucus. Or who includes among his 'big ideas' getting laptops for the homeless. Or who raised concerns about women in combat roles because, 'males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.' Or the man who was so outraged by President Clinton's personal ind[i]scretions that he sought impeachment during his own extramarital affair.