Kinda Funny
CJ stated in comments here that the outrage over the Republican’s ad by some Democrats was likely from MoveOn (which wouldn’t surprise me):
They sent an e-mail today crying about this ad and asking people to fight back by giving money to them. They also give some talking points that seem to be repeated in the blogs you link to.
Now, prominent Democrats are in fact using the same fictitous talking points:
“We all want to defeat terrorism,” the South Dakota senator said. But “to chastise and to question the patriotism of those who are in opposition to some of the president’s plans I think is wrong.”
Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy called it an “attempt to stifle dissent.”
Running down the talking points, it seems. Say, isn’t that what Dems accuse those who disagree with of doing?
Update: Can’t confirm if MoveOn is issuing talking points, but they are raising money to counter the ad. Where there’s smoke . . .
November 24th, 2003 at 12:22 pm
Can’t confirm if MoveOn is issuing talking points, but they are raising money to counter the ad. Where there’s smoke . . .
Why on Earth wouldn’t they try to counter the ad, via talking points and any other means available? What, are Democrats supposed to just lay down and take it?
November 24th, 2003 at 1:14 pm
Never said they shouldn’t.
November 24th, 2003 at 2:40 pm
Then I guess I’m missing what’s so funny about it.
November 24th, 2003 at 2:48 pm
I wouldn’t think you would since we disagree on the issue at hand any way :^)
November 24th, 2003 at 2:51 pm
I’m also missing what’s “fictitous” about the talking points. And while I don’t doubt that some talking points were drawn up, I can’t find a list of them. As I said in another thread, I’m even on MoveOn’s mailing list, and I didn’t get any such thing.
November 24th, 2003 at 2:53 pm
We often agree on hypocrisy, regardless of which side of the aisle originates it, and that’s what I’m missing. I don’t see any hypocrisy here. I guess you’re going to have to spell it out for me.
November 24th, 2003 at 3:00 pm
As I said in another thread, I’m even on MoveOn’s mailing list, and I didn’t get any such thing.
I said allegedly.
I guess you’re going to have to spell it out for me.
The issue was the attack of the attack ad was riddled with misstatements. Of course, scroll up a bit and you can see that it’s likely the first phase of the attack. I never really called anyone a hypocrite in this particular instance. I just think it’s politics as usual and the left getting bent out of shape is maybe unwarranted.
And honestly, this early in the game with dems already viewed by a lot of people as cry babies, this doesn’t help them much.
November 24th, 2003 at 7:54 pm
Then that’s where you and I part company. I think the “attacking the president for attacking the terrorists” statement was put into the ad precisely to equate opposition to Bush’s methods with opposition to any action. The WaPo link I gave you — the one that says the RNC’s strategy is specifically going to be to question the patriotism of the democrats — lends credence to that theory.
Operating from that premise, which I have demonstrated is not “out there” at all, none of the democratic responses is in any way out of line.
Bear in mind that you still haven’t provided one single example of a prominent democrat attacking the president for anything other than his method of fighting terror. Certainly nothing to justify the “attacking the president for attacking the terrorists” statement.
In your opinion, how should the democrats be responding to the ad? They attack the ad, you accuse them of getting “all worked up over nothing,” and of being “crybabies.” They don’t attack the ad, and they get accused of being too weak-willed to stand up to Bush and the RNC.