Memo To Democrats: Talking Points
So Petraeus and Crocker have reported, President Bush has spoken to the nation, and the congressional war debate is slated to begin in earnest next week. Since the Democrats seem to be incapable of staying "on message" the way Republicans so effortlessly manage to do, I'd like to steal a page from the Republican playbook. It's an idea whose time has come: Democratic talking points.
Before I get to the memo, however, I was wondering if anyone else noticed two verbal gaffes by Bush last night. Sorry to get all "grammar police" here, but two things stuck out from his speech. The first was the use of a word I had never heard before (and which I'm not convinced even exists): "overwatching." Here is the relevant sentence:
Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces.
Either (a) Bush is slightly dyslexic and mis-read "watching over;" (b) it's an obscure military term I am unfamiliar with; or (c) somebody didn't proofread this speech very carefully.
While the military is fully capable of inverting normal English phrases for no particular reason (see: "MRE" or "Meal, Ready to Eat"), I suspect the answer is (c), because of the next gaffe.
Here is Bush, once again:
And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
"Many fewer." This is what is known as an oxymoron -- a self-contradicting term -- much like "jumbo shrimp." A normal person would have just said "requires fewer," someone looking for a more poetic phrase would have said "far fewer," and someone looking for emphasis and erudition would have said "significantly fewer," but what Bush actually said was "many fewer."
I point this out not to score cheap political points against the President (well, OK, maybe just a little bit...), but to ask whether Karl Rove's absence (and all the others streaming out of the White House these days "to spend time with their family") is having an effect on the speechwriting staff. They're usually better than this, so it does indeed make me wonder.
But even if Bush is slipping in the wordsmithing department, the only way to capitalize on this is if Democrats can jump in with their own vision, their own "framing" and their own consistent terminology during this weekend's interviews on television.
To help them out (since they can't seem to use this very effective political tactic very well on their own), I have prepared the following memo, for immediate release.
[Feel free to add items of your own in the comment section.]
MEMO
TO: All Congressional Democrats, all party spokesmen, and especially those who are booked on Sunday morning talk shows
FROM: Chris Weigant and the rest of the usual suspects at Huffington Post
SUBJECT: Talking points on Iraq and the President's speech
(1) Avoid the passive voice like the plague. Whenever talking about the war in general, what's wrong with the strategy, or Republican obstructionism in general; use the following phrase to bind congressional Republicans to George W. Bush:
Bush and the Republicans in Congress
Use liberally (pun intended). "Bush and the Republicans in Congress are standing in the way of a new strategy for Iraq." "We could end this war tomorrow if Bush and the Republicans in Congress would listen to the public." Etc., etc., etc. Pin the blame where it deserves to be pinned: on Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Tie nervous Republicans seeking re-election to the White House's Iraq policy as often as you can.
(2) Remind everyone what is really going on in Iraq by always using the phrase:
Civil war
See Jeffrey Feldman's article currently up on the Huffington Post for further details.
(3) Dust off that old Republican chestnut and fling it back in their faces. Demand:
An up-or-down vote on Iraq
To most Americans (many of whom do not understand the way the Senate works) this sounds mighty fair -- have a vote, then whoever gets over half wins. Use the term obstructionist as many times as possible to define the Republican stance in the Senate. Use one of the GOP's favorite catchphrases against them.
(4) Make it clear what Bush's only goal in Iraq is (which he finally admitted last night):
Kick the can down the road to the next president
This one really needs no explanation, but it bears repeating as often as possible. All Bush cares about is his "legacy" which equates to "stay the course" and "stalling for time."
(5) STRONGLY disagree whenever the media uses "the far left anti-war wing of the Democratic Party" or similar phrases:
Vast majority of the American public
As in: "Actually, the vast majority of the American public wants the U.S. out of Iraq, faster than we're even talking about today." "Well, it's not a 'fringe Democratic' position, and I object to you calling it that -- in truth, poll after poll shows it is the position of the vast majority of the American public."
(6) Ignore the Petraeus and Crocker smokescreen. Put the blame where it needs to be:
Americans just don't trust George Bush on Iraq any more
If the MoveOn.org ad comes up in the conversation, turn it around and talk about Saxby Chambliss. "When the Republicans are ready to apologize for what they did to Silver Star and Bronze Star recipient Max Cleland -- a triple amputee due to his battlefield injuries -- by smearing him with the images of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then we can talk about the MoveOn ad. Not before."
(7) Note the lack of progress of the Iraqi government:
Three benchmarks complete out of eighteen, after eight months of waiting
"American soldiers are dying every day in Iraq so that the Iraqi government can meet these benchmarks. They have completed three out of eighteen after eight months and hundreds of dead American soldiers. At this rate, they will complete all eighteen in 40 months' time. [turn to face the Republican you are debating] Are you willing to let George Bush keep over 130,000 soldiers in Iraq until the beginning of 2011? Because I think that's too long, and so do the American people."
[As I said, feel free to add your own. I'd also like to take this opportunity to say goodbye to Alberto Gonzales on his last day in Washington. For those of you who remember the Reagan administration, you may enjoy reading when I actually did say goodbye to him -- back on April 18, 2007.]
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
Chris,
I agree with your hypothesis...
I want to point out a few things before I give my own "talking point" for the Democrats.
First; "Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces."
Don't focus on the phrasing, but the intent; that Iraqi forces just cannot handle the job (or at least we don't believe they can) without the U.S. military to babysit.
This cannot be stressed enough as it is one of the main justifications that was used to remain in Iraq; they stand up and we stand down. But, they AREN'T standing up because NOW we are going to be their babysitters even IF they stand up. Why???? Talk about insulting a nation!
Second; "And we are ready to begin building that relationship — in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops."
Again, let's look at the INTENT of what he is saying; "protects our INTERESTS in the region". OIL. That is it. That is the crux. Our troops are going to remain in Iraq and the region to protect OIL while Bush's BUDDY gets a Kurdish oil contract. The Democrats can bludgeon this point 24/7; our troops are protecting the oil for Bush's BUDDIES to profit off of.
Anyway... good post...
@Michael Gass
I am amazed at the utter hypocrisy...
You slam and attack me for using "talking points".. Then yer gonna turn around and post them yourself..
Another example of the blatant hypocrisy of the hysterical and radical Left...
As for the "Oil" issue, jeeze louise.. Of course it's about oil..
You try living with out ANYTHING that comes from oil for a day... THEN come bitching and moaning to me about how it's "all about oil"...
Michale.....
@CW
So, we have established that "Talking Points" are a GOOD thing, right??
As to your Bush's gaffes?? I suspect that, if any of us here had their posts previewed, reviewed and gone over with a fine tooth comb by hundreds of thousands of people bent on our personal destruction, there would be a few "gaffes" to find.. This is a non-issue..
As for your "talking points", they are quite good...
Maybe now Gass will ease up on his attacks over "talking points".. It seems to be one of his favorite NON ISSUEs....
Michale.....
I do have one question though...
>"We could end this war tomorrow if
>Bush and the Republicans in Congress
>would listen to the public."
So, you are saying that Bush should prosecute a war based on the INPUT OF THE PUBLIC!!!!
Please tell me you are joking!!!
The ONLY thing worse than letting the American Public run a war is to let the US Congress run a war...
Ya'all just don't seem to get the concept of "COMMANDER IN CHIEF"... I understand because of ya'alls lack of military experience.. That's not a dig, no matter how it comes out. (OK not MUCH of a dig)...
But, military actions are not run by committee. A commander doesn't take a vote or decide to go with what's popular.
Like it or not, Bush is the Commander of the US Military forces during time of war..
If the Democrats use the "Bush is not listening to the American Public in the prosecution of the war" talking point, the Republicans will CRUCIFY them. And the American Public will be right there, holding the nails...
There won't be a Democrat left capable of being elected county Dog Catcher...
When it comes to the US Military, the LAST thing that is needed is to prosecute the war based on Public Opinion...
"We're here to preserve Democracy. Not to practice it."
-Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE
Michale.....
and Michale shows his true colors...
- talking points good when it slanders decorated veterans like Max Cleland and John Kerry... bad when Democrats even THINK to play THAT game!
We didn't hear him/her denouncing THOSE talking points... only that the Democrats would ENTER the game...
What is that tennis term?
Point... Set... Match...
@Gass
Actually it's you that are showing true colors..
I have never made it a point to denounce "talking points". I believe that talking points are a good thing, as they take complex and complicated issues and pare them down to understandability for those who are ignorant of the nuances of any particular issue. Much like you and military matters.
You are on record as condemning the use of "talking points". Nearly all of your personal attacks against me are based on the use of "talking points".
Now, you turn around and state you are going to post your own "talking points".
How is that not hypocrisy??
You seem to believe that if the Democrats use talking points, it's a good thing. But if the Republicans use talking points, it's a bad thing.
So, I ask again.. How is this not hypocrisy???
Michale.....
With regards to the Democratic Party, Moveon.org has stating
"Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back,"
It's finally nice to hear the truth..
The Democratic Party has been "bought" by a radical Anti-America organization.
This all but guarantees a GOP sweep in the 2008 elections.
I wonder how the likes of Harry Ried and Nancy Pelosi feel about being "bought"...
Michale.....
OK, timeout.
I'll get around to commenting on some of these comments in a minute (I gotta post today's comic).
But I wanted to ask you guys a serious question, so everybody just catch your breath and indulge me in this timeout here.
I got to thinking after writing this column that this might be an interesting thing to do every Friday - put out a talking points memo for Democrats to use on the weekend talk shows. Sure, they'll probably ignore me, but it certainly seems like whoever is in charge of Democratic talking points (assuming there even IS anyone in charge -- a substantial assumption, it should be pointed out) doesn't really know what they're doing. Every so often there will be a week where the Dems score a few political points by repeating the same soundbite, but for the most part they're just all over the map.
So what do you think of the idea of this becoming a weekly (Friday) feature? Good idea? Bad? Would it just get boring after a few weeks?
Of course, since it would be weekly, I could go after very specific "hot issues" (which I normally don't do, read the "About the blog" page for why I philosophically try to stay away from "flash in the pan" stuff) -- and give Dems some snappy things to say about that week's issue du jour (issues de la semaine?).
Anyway, just wanted to float the idea by you guys to see what you think. Cartoon will be posted soon, and check it out, there's a big announcement with it.
-CW
Chris Weigant wrote:
OK, timeout.
~~~~~~~
Whew, I was gettin' plum tuckered.
~~~~~~~
I got to thinking after writing this column that this might be an interesting thing to do every Friday - put out a talking points memo for Democrats to use on the weekend talk shows.
~~~~~~~
This sounds like an excellent idea. Democrats need all the help they can get, whether they'll admit it or not. There's probably so much noise out there, that it will take them awhile to catch up. Maybe a title or keywords that will make it hard to miss (or dismiss)in a google search, would catch their attention. maybe:
"Democratic Talking Points for xx/xx/xx"
-or-
"Free SEX with BRITNEY"
Dear Michale,
Two questions.
If (if) Move-on says something, does that make it true?
Given a choice of a government owned by corporations, or a government owned by the grass roots, which would you prefer?
@CW
As long as some of your readers can get past their hatred of "talking points" I think it is a grand idea..
@CDub
>If (if) Move-on says something,
>does that make it true?
According to many of the hysterical Anti-America Left, it does...
I was more concerned, though, with your thoughts on the Democratic Party being "bought"...
>Given a choice of a government
>owned by corporations, or a government
>owned by the grass roots, which would
>you prefer?
Though I am skirting close to a GODWIN here, I would point out that the NAZI party was a "grass roots" movement at the beginning..
So, in this regard, I would definitely prefer a party that was bought by American Corporations rather than a radical, hysterical and violent Anti-America group.
That is not to say I would like ANY Political Party to be "bought"... But, given the choice, I would choose the lesser of two evils...
Having said all that, what's your thoughts?? Do you mind that a rabid, hysterical and violent Anti-America group has claimed to have "bought" your political party??
How does that make you feel??
Anyone?? Anyone??? Beuhler???
Actually, I don't know why I even bother answering your questions, CDub.. You never return the courtesy of answering mine..
Oh well, I guess that just shows who stands firmly on their principles and beliefs and who does not..
Michale.....
Wait a tic!!
Did you say "FREE SEX WITH BRITNEY"????
Michale.....
On another note, CW...
I guess the Anti War protesters did not read your column..
During the DC Protests today, it was,
"What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now,"
How utterly lame and unoriginal...
No wonder these anti-war loons can't get the media to give them the time of day... :^/
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
@CDub
>If (if) Move-on says something,
>does that make it true?
According to many of the hysterical Anti-America Left, it does…
~~~~~~~~~~
So that's your answer, you are going to let 'many of the hysterical Anti-America Left' speak for you? So you say that whatever Move-on says is true?
~~~~~~~~~~
>Given a choice of a government
>owned by corporations, or a government
>owned by the grass roots, which would
>you prefer?
Though I am skirting close to a GODWIN here, I would point out that the NAZI party was a "grass roots" movement at the beginning..
Can you prove that?
~~~~~~~
Actually, I don't know why I even bother answering your questions, CDub.. You never return the courtesy of answering mine..
~~~~~~~
But you actually dodged the first question, unless you side with 'many of the hysterical Anti-America Left'
But you were clear on the second question, you'll take fascism over government of, by and for the people any day.
~~~~~~~
Oh well, I guess that just shows who stands firmly on their principles and beliefs and who does not..
~~~~~~~
You can have your fascism and your rabid hysterical Anti-American left, I'll be over here if you ever really want to talk. Stand firm though.
Cdub,
I'm done responding to Michale... no matter how many sources... how many facts... how many times he/she is proven wrong... it is just another argument, just another talking point to debunk (if hasn't been already)... just more "but but CLINTON!!!".
You will not get clear debate... and I'm doing trying.
@CDub
>So you say that whatever Move-on says is true?
I don't know how you get "Whatever MoveOn.Org says is true" from "What's your opinion about MOveOn.org's claim that they have 'bought' the Democratic Party?" :^/
As for proving the Nazi Party started out as a grass roots, of course I can.. Question is, why should I even bother??
@Gass
>no matter how many sources… how many facts…
You cherry pick your sources and your "facts" (which are nothing but hysterical innuendos anyways). Like I said, you are like the guy who has a picture book of all the birds of the world. You hysterically point to all the red birds in the book and scream,
"RED BIRD!!! RED BIRD!!! RED BIRD!!! SEE!!! THESE 'FACTS' PROVE THAT ALL BIRDS IN THE WORLD ARE RED!!!"
Your "sources" are nothing but other Bush Bashers ranting THEIR opinions that "all birds in the world are red."
>how many times he/she is proven wrong…
To date?? Not once... But, that's OK.. I am not out to be right.. I am simply here to show you that you MIGHT be wrong.. Something you simply cannot concede.. And you claim that *I* am the close-minded one??
What kind of liberal are you???
And, just to save you some typing, I am a guy... :D
Michale.....
Since ya'all can't be bothered to learn the truth about Iraq and the disgusting and appalling treatment our commanders receive at the hands of the Democrats (our gracious host excepted, of course), I decided to bring the truth to you.
An aside to CW-If you are concerned about copyright issues, please feel free to delete this. No harm, no foul..
Democrats' Blatant Display to Impugn General David Petraeus
By Lt. Col. Oliver North
Washington, D.C. — Any objective observer who watched or read this week’s House and Senate testimony of Gen. David Petraeus received an informative assessment of the situation on the battlefield in Mesopotamia. Our top military commander in Iraq proffered a cool, level-headed report on successes and failures to date, gave his assessment of the challenges ahead and provided rational recommendations for the future.
By contrast, America’s Democrats gave the world a revealing look at the depths they are willing to plumb in their insatiable quest for raw political power. In what transpired before and during these hearings, Democrats made transparent their willingness to destroy anyone or anything that interferes with their designs.
During a telephone conversation three days before Gen. Petraeus sat down next to Ambassador Ryan Crocker in the Caucus Room of the Cannon House Office building, my friend, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) told me that Democrats were conducting a “guerrilla campaign of character assassination†to impugn the general and that it would culminate with “a frontal attack†on his integrity. Congressman Hunter posited that based on my personal experience in a similar atmosphere, I would understand. But not even I could gauge how low the Democrats had sunk or how vicious they have become.
On Monday morning — just hours before the first day of hearings — The New York Times published a full-page ad paid for by MoveOn.org, a leftist, anti-U.S. military organization that has become a major financial and propaganda organ for Democrats. The text, below a photo of the general read: “General Petraeus or General Betray-Us? Cooking the Books for the White House.†The clear implication of the ad was that a dishonest general, doing the bidding of the Bush administration, was going to dissemble before the Congress and could not be trusted to tell the truth.
The hearings began with a familiar routine: shrill diatribes from Democrat committee chairmen Ike Skelton and Tom Lantos who lectured and hectored the general — denouncing the campaign in Iraq in general and Gen. Petraeus in particular. Mr. Lantos, who had once stood steadfast with the Reagan administration against communism, launched a pre-emptive strike on the battlefield commander’s testimony before he’d ever seen or heard it with a dismissively insulting: “I don’t buy it.â€
Then, the cabal that wants to abandon the war against radical Islam demonstrated their competence. They couldn’t even get the general’s microphone to work. While the world waited to hear what Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker would say, more than half a dozen anti-U.S. military protesters had their way.
Allowed to enter the hearing room dressed in pink, the activists jumped up screaming obscenities and denouncing America, before being finally escorted from the chamber. Those who speculate that the muted microphones and the protests were orchestrated by the Democrats running the show have reason to wonder.
When Gen. Petraeus was finally afforded the opportunity to speak he defended his words as his own. "This is my testimony, although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress until it was just handed out," he said. By then, the damage had already been done. Committee members like Mr. Lantos barely glanced at the detailed charts that accompanied the Petraeus presentation. At times, the Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee appeared to be having trouble staying awake.
In the aftermath, some of my older “media colleagues†and even a member of Congress sympathetically opined that the treatment Gen. Petraeus received was reminiscent of another hearing 20 years ago this summer. They are wrong.
What happened this week to Gen. Petraeus — and less directly to Amb. Crocker — was far worse than what transpired two decades ago on Capitol Hill during the Iran-Contra hearings. When Adm. John Poindexter and I testified, we weren’t in command. By the summer of 1987 the admiral and I were simply staff officers, summoned to testify about past events. That’s entirely different from the smear that took place this week.
Gen. Petraeus commands more than 160,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines who are in the field, battling a brutal enemy in the midst of a long, hard campaign. He was summoned — not “sent,†as Mr. Lantos alleged — to testify about current and future operations. Troops who have to face death daily, wearing flak jackets in 120 degree heat, watched and listened in barracks, bunkers and command-posts as their leader was denigrated, demeaned and belittled by the majority party in Congress.
Such abusive treatment of a U.S. battlefield commander not only demoralizes our troops and disheartens our allies — it is a great encouragement to our enemies as well. Tellingly, the day after the hearings ended, Sheikh Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni leader credited by Gen. Petraeus as the leader of the revolt against Al Qaeda, was assassinated by a bomb planted in his home. President Bush, who met the brave Sheikh in Al Anbar two weeks ago, immediately expressed his condolences. The Democrats couldn’t be bothered.
Democrats have now shown the world that they will denigrate and destroy anyone or anything to placate their far-left, deep-pocket donors. Do the American people really want this party in power?
Oliver North eh?
Now there's a credible Fox commentator. It's not like he was ever involved in shredding documents to hide his complicity in overthrowing a sovereign nation or anything, and I'll bet he never lied to congress either. Yep, a trustworthy voice if there ever was one.
He is, undeniably, a patriotic American..
There isn't anyone on the Democratic side of things who has an iota of the integrity that Col. North has..
But, it's so typical of the radical Left to ignore the words and facts, but rather just resort to an attempt at character assassination.. That seems to be right in keeping with the Democrat's play book..
That is why the Democratic Party is known as the Anti America Party...
Michale.....
The same Oliver North that was indicted on 16 felony counts and convicted of 3 ... not like he was a war criminal, or running guns explicitly against a law created just to prevent it, or anything like that. Lying to congress seems to be advocated by one party ... hmmm, maybe I'll sign up and be a patriot.
You mean, like Clinton's lies and obstruction of justice??
At least, with Col North, it was in DEFENSE of the USA..
Clinton lied because he was ashamed about getting a blow job in the Oval Office.
You and your Democratic Party are the LAST ones who should talk about integrity and telling the truth..
Michale.....
But, regardless of that, you still have yet to answer how you feel about the claim that your Political Party being bought and paid for by a radical and violent Anti-America fringe group..
Strange how you never answer anything put to you, but always have time to spew anti-American garbage...
Michale.....
What? You haven't answered my question yet, and you think I owe you something?
Since you have no intention of dealing with that, let's get back to Ollie ... Was arming South American terrorists when congress caught on and passed laws to stop him. So then he sold guns to Iran through an Israeli middleman in order to buy guns to arm South American terrorists and shredded the evidence when he got caught again.
Which part of breaking US laws to arm terrorists was in defense of the USA?
@CDub
Please identify the South American "Terrorists" that Col North armed..
And, if I recall correctly, the deal was made to secure the release of American hostages.. I realize that you really don't like Americans all that much (except for the one's that agree with you) but still.. The hostages had families and such.. Doesn't that MEAN anything to you??
Regardless, I suspect that yours is simply more Anti-America propaganda insofar as your determined to label anyone who supports the USA-cause as "terrorists"...
On another note, how does it make you feel that an fanatical and violent Anti-America group has claimed to have "BOUGHT" your Democratic Party??
And we have terrorist groups praising the efforts of the Democrats et al in their battle against the Bush Administration..
It's amazing that the rhetoric from Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah et al is nearly the SAME rhetoric that is coming from the Democratic Party...
Strange that, eh??
Michale.....
@CDub
Please identify the South American "Terrorists" that Col North armed..
~~~~~
Why? are you crippled? The information is at your fingertips as you read this. Discover, learn.
~~~~~~
And, if I recall correctly, the deal was made to secure the release of American hostages.. I realize that you really don't like Americans all that much (except for the one's that agree with you) but still.. The hostages had families and such.. Doesn't that MEAN anything to you??
~~~~~~
You don't recall correctly.
~~~~~~
Regardless, I suspect that yours is simply more Anti-America propaganda insofar as your determined to label anyone who supports the USA-cause as "terrorists"…
~~~~~~
Your suspicion is not borne out. Though it is true that many USA causes have been terrorist in nature (See Ollie North).
~~~~~~
On another note, how does it make you feel that an fanatical and violent Anti-America group has claimed to have "BOUGHT" your Democratic Party??
~~~~~~
This is your claim, but where is the evidence? You sound very fanatic and anti-American when you make those claims.
~~~~~~
And we have terrorist groups praising the efforts of the Democrats et al in their battle against the Bush Administration..
It's amazing that the rhetoric from Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah et al is nearly the SAME rhetoric that is coming from the Democratic Party…
Strange that, eh??
~~~~~~
Actually quite predictable.
There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you know that the cat is not going to be on the side of those doing the skinning. But when the public is paying you to skin the cat and you botch the job so terribly that you run up the largest debts in the history of the world without ever getting the job done, and there's more cats as a consequence, don't expect the public to wave flags and say 'Heck of a job Georgie.'
CDub
Oh and PS:
Tell Ollie that if I ever stumble upon his grave, I'll spit on it in honor of the thousands of innocent Women and Children slaughtered as a direct consequence of his 'Patriotism'.
CDub
@CDub
>Why? are you crippled? The information
>is at your fingertips as you read this.
>Discover, learn.
Ahhhh I see.. :D There wasn't any...
>You don't recall correctly.
Says you... :D There is an old Internet acronym. PPOSTFU It's very appropriate here...
>Your suspicion is not borne out.
>Though it is true that many USA
>causes have been terrorist in
>nature (See Ollie North).
PPOSTFU :D
>This is your claim, but where is the evidence?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297133,00.html
GAME.....
SET..........
MATCH.................
Have a happy.... :D
Michale.....
Again, CW.. If yer concerned about Copyright issues, feel free to delete...
Democrats Need to Take Stand Against Leftist Web Sites
Monday , September 17, 2007
By John Gibson
The former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has a new book out and he's weighed in on the Democratic Party.
"The Clinton administration was a pretty centrist party," he said on "60 Minutes." "But they're not governing again. The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party has moved very significantly in the wrong direction."
Greenspan was referring, The Wall Street Journal reported, to the Democratic Party's populist bent, especially its skepticism about free trade. But Greenspan might as well have been talking about other aspects of the MoveOn.org Party's hard left turn.
You think I misspoke and that I should have said the Democrat Party? No, it's the MoveOn Party now. Because no Democrat running for president has had the courage to condemn MoveOn for its slime tactics against Gen. David Petraeus, nor has it been willing to cross the line set out by the far left triumvirate of MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos and ThinkProgress.org.
When these guys say jump, the Democrats don't even pause to ask how high. They just jump and hope to God it's high enough. No Democrat is willing to cross the Internet organizations which have taken over the Democrat Party.
Eli Pariser, who runs MoveOn's political action unit, famously said of the Democrat Party: "We own it, we bought it, we paid for it, and we're taking it back." That should have sent a shudder down the backs of Democrats, and it should have prompted them to get some distance. But instead, that declaration of ownership has been reciprocated with the bended knee of every Democrat running for president.
Greenspan is right. Hillary's Democrats are not the same as Bill's Democrats. The new Democrats are meat eaters, and they will devour any of their own who deviates from the party line set down by Eli Pariser and George Soros, who writes the checks.
I'd like to think Hillary has the guts to cut MoveOn loose. We'll be watching to see when her moment of courage comes, if it ever comes at all.
That's My Word.
Let's try something new here.. Rather than making unsubstantiated personal attacks on the messenger, let's try and address the message... Wouldn't that be a golly gee whiz really nifty thing to do??
Michale.....
Are you slipping Michale,
You link doesn't support any of your claims.
Where does it say that Move-On claims to have bought the democratic party?
Where does it say that Move-On is Violent?
Where does it say that Move-On is anti American?
Don't pack up your racket just yet ... Or maybe you should.
OK, first I have to apologize as I've been too busy to keep up with some excellent comment threads this week and last.
But I do have to address the legal issue. Michale, the way I understand it is copyright is not an issue as long as you post a link. So you can post a whole article if you like, but please make the title of the article a link to where you originally found it (ideally, where it first appeared and not from a third-party site).
Anyone else who would like to post a link but does not know how, email me (from the "Email Chris" link at bottom right) and I will let you know how, or just post the text of the URL in your comment and I will make it into an active link for you.
To be fair, I must also point out that CDub didn't post a link to "Free sex with Britney."
Heh heh.
[No, I'm not serious. Sex links are treated as spam and deleted.]
Anyone posting multiple links in a single comment be warned that the spam filter catches it. Your post will be approved manually if it passes muster, but it may take a while. Just FYI.
-CW
I don't think you need a link for 'Free Sex with Britney', you just need to be in the same elevator.
(OK, that was bad ... sorry Britney).
@CW
Got it... I usually do post links when I post portions or quotes.. But you are correct, I should post the link regardless..
Having said that, would you mind fixing my attributes?? Replace the [] with the Much ass grassy ass.. :D
@CDub
Did you even READ the articles I posted???
Regardless, I will help you along... :D
In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,†the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.â€
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B89BC7BB2-298F-4B8D-99DF-A9EA273A0559%7D
"We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back." Those are the now infamous words spoken by MoveOn.org founder Eli Pariser when speaking about the Democrat Party after the 2004 elections. "We own it."
http://www.nrsc.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=497
On December 9, 2004, a month after Kerry's Election Day defeat, Pariser declared that MoveOn had effectively taken control of the Democratic Party. "For years," he said, "the party has been led by elite Washington insiders who are closer to corporate lobbyists than they are to the Democratic base. But we can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers. … In the last year, grass-roots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2138
That should put to rest your allegation that MoveOn.org did NOT claim to have "bought" the Democratic Party..
Ahem.... Moving on... :D
Now that I have got you started, you can find the rest on your own, I am sure.... :D
Michale.....
So, now that we have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that MoveOn.org has claimed to have "bought and paid for" the Democratic Party, might you grace us with your opinion on how it feels to be "bought and paid for"...
Or, do you wish to discuss what the definition of "is" is???
Michale.....
I did read the link you gave, and it said nothing of the sort, in fact the word 'own' only appears once in an entirely different context.
I'm not the democratic party, so I couldn't tell you how it feels to be bought and paid for, but since these new links actually support your claim, two things come to mind.
First, just because Move-On claims to own the democratic party, that doesn't make it true.
And second, since Move-on is a coalition of American voters, it might be good if they Did own the democratic party, which they don't. The sad truth is that the democratic party is just like the republican party, paid for outright by everyone with an agenda. If move-on can influence the party to pay attention to voters, I'm pulling for them.
Unless of course Move-on is anti-American (where's that link?), or violent (you forgot that link too).
I didn't "forget" anything..
I figured since you are going to bail on providing proof about your alleged "South American terrorists", I would let you do your own digging for the violence and anti-americanism of MoveOn.org...
Give you a hint though.. Claiming to have bought and paid for a political party is about as ANTI-AMERICAN as one can get.
As far as the violence goes, all you would have had to do is live in Florida during the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections to see all the violence and assaults and vandalism committed by MoveOn.org's volunteers and reps.
The violence against the Right committed by the Left was WAY WAY up during those two years..
Still waiting for your link to your "South American Terrorists" that Col North supplied..
Michale.....
I can understand why you can't produce links to stories you've just made up, but if you don't know how Oliver North became a household name, it's because you don't want to know.