US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

MoveOn has been instrumental in shining the light of honest public scrutiny on all the cockroaches, Delay in particular.

Like CREW, KOS and many others, the people at MoveOn have forged a revolutionary and irresistable new force in the game of political power, from the netroots out. They have created in "the blogs" a public tool of awesome and undeniable influence, with power enough to bring the hammer down on "The Hammer" and help break up the K-Street gang.

But I think I speak for many who are terribly disappointed that John McCain has sunken low enough in his all-out sell-out that MoveOn has targeted him for their white-hot beam of truth and public scrutiny.

There was a day when many of us considered McCain one of the few sensible "gops" who led the resistance against the Republican's ongoing internal bout with pernicious, contagious neoconitis.

But now he's in bed with the very political outlaws he wagged his finger at when they trashed him back in earlier times. Worse yet, he has actually become a born-again neocon, taking on their talking points and supportng their shameless outsourcing and "ugly american" imperialism as if he was always one of their charter members, and not the "maverick" the MSM invented to make him look like some sort of "alternative."

MoveOn is right to target McCain, and try to take him out of the game, like they did Delay and so many other snake-in-the-house, two-faced Republicans.

There was a time when we considered him one of "us." But McCain has become one of "them." And he should be exposed for what he really is.

The ad also ran on CNN in Michigan.

Susan H.
"McCain may be a moderate among Republicans, but that is mainly because the party has moved so far to the right that it would be unrecognizable to any Republican of 1975. He is, in fact, a supporter of the Iraq debacle. He will have to live with that."

First off, Reagan was alive, kicking and almost the nominee for president around 1975. Then there was that Goldwater fellow in the 60's. If the Republicans have moved so far right, why do they keep getting elected? Odd.

McCain is not consistent enough or more importantly conservative enough to be elected. That said, when MoveOn tries to exact a "political price" on someone for their support of the war and the troops, what does that make them? Shameless. Make your case for retreat and argue the points vs escalation. But why would MoveOn do that - its easier to to be sleazy. Think of what Bush and McCain are trying to do in Iraq when you read this quote from the apparently centrist Goldwater - "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

In 2000 I could have voted for McCain. I was an Independent then. I became a Democrat, not because of McCain or even the national scene entirely, but because of my local and state Republican representatives. Mc Cain lost me when he cozied up to the religious right, especially the obviously demented ones. Since that time it is obvious his reputation for individual thinking outside the ideologic box of the party is only a patina. If I can see that, the glare of a presidential campaign will shine enough light on him to reveal his true colors to enough of the electorate to have them reject another ideologue. The record of his votes will be enough.

I have to say that I am totally gobsmacked that people are attacking MoveOn for their "lockstep attitude" and their failure to turn away funds from wealthy people, not to mention the STUPID "Hitler-comparison" attacks.
I am a long-time member of MoveOn. I say that if Wes Boyd was wealthy enough to start up an unabashedly liberal movement, more power to him. The other MoveOn leaders are not so wealthy, unfortunately. That's why MoveOn has so many (3 million and growing) members who make small contributions, and they do so because they firmly believe that MoveOn does more good than any other political action group. Far from being "lockstep" they poll their members frequently to insure that they are actually representing the members' views. They also partner with other progressive organizations, as a way to get wider representation.
The MoveOn leaders are politically savvy. Would that the Dems were so politically savvy.
That political ability is why MoveOn got the support of George Soros, who is a man who expects to get a lot for his money. That was, however, a one-time thing, as I understand it, and it happened back in 2004, when any progressive voter in the US was desperately trying to stop George Bush from doing exactly what he has done in the years since.
It is not "swift-boating" to tell the truth about McCain. It is "swift-boating" to pretend that MoveOn issued or supported a statement comparing George Bush to Hitler. They did not, and they apologized that one of their multitude of members took that attitude. They also improved their screening of member contributions -- perhaps that is what is being defined as "lockstep." They do now screen for comments that are not civil or are plain nuts, or represent MoveOn in a way that is severely out of step with their members' values.
In short, MoveOn does a marvelous job, and the McCain ad represents the views of MoveOn members very well. McCain may be a moderate among Republicans, but that is mainly because the party has moved so far to the right that it would be unrecognizable to any Republican of 1975. He is, in fact, a supporter of the Iraq debacle. He will have to live with that.

You're right coward, perhaps it is better if I obtain all my lies from the NYT. no sense letting the individual decide what to consume, what with you soviets willing to decide for him.

Everything that can be done MUST be done to prevent McCain from trading-on what he ONCE personified, he is no longer that person.
I have a personal letter from him from back in the day when HE was "swiftboated" and called "The Manchurian Candidate", and I defended McCain. He now has flipped that switch in his head by HIMSELF, I no-longer have ANY idea what he stands for, unless it's personal dishonor and degradation.

Fight McCain by any means necessary, he has NOTHING for the American People.

Wrong on the total grassroots support for Moveon.org. The group was started by a mulitmillionaire named Wes Boyd and a female partner of his. So wealthy Dems like Boyd and George Soros have paid over $40 million to set up attack machines.

I doubt Cillizza will do the research to verfiy this, but Byron York of a conservative magazine did a huge story about Wes Boyd.
If you don't like the influence of mega million people, then you can't like Moveon. org either

End the War in Iraq. I say maybe that very statement is not exact and is "curious" if you are Alice in Wonderland. "Bring the Troops Home" is the correct peace activist view and national fervor claimed at 73% now, likely rising in the face of the unpopular escalation threat.

What is the "real" war? Very likely depends on whether you are a 73% and rising American, or a Republican, whose numbers are seeing the obvious cause of threat of extinction...proper "pun" which is not just a verbal prospect...also whether you are Iraqi and an Insurgent who certainly sees U.S. Occupation as an unwanted situation, but might be a cover for their real issues, which would be properly and sanely revealed if the U.S. does offer a policy driven and humanitarian aid driven, withdrawal plan with protection from the U.N. for Iraq Self-Rule.

Money? Humanitarian aid, let the Iraqi's decide their own Democracy.

My view is that it is not possible until the U.S. is out of there.

There certainly are numerous "qualified" draftable children of the Congress and Administation members who voted for the Iraq War. Michael Moore's movie Farenheit 911 showed Moore quizzing one Congressman about the reality that only one of all the children of Congress was in Iraq. The Congressman refused to answer.

Certainly the Congressmen who voted for the War have the right to believe their decision is not necessarily that of their children. But, that reality, if any integrity of choice is shown by those children, proves a 90% disagreement.

Chelsea was not in the military was she? But Hillary has supported Bush, hasn't she? And Chelsea smiles?

The Bush twin daughters are not in the military, are they? And they both smile without protest?

Sticky wicket? How sticky?

The war is not supported at a majority level and the hypocrisy of the Congress who allowed Bush to invade Iraq when it should have been an international remedy, not U.S. occupation, is obviously still a viewable perspective.

There were throngs protesting in the streets of Italy and many globally demonstrating FOR IRAQ's own self rule without war.

What "war" needs to end?

First we need to pull out with a proper "helping" hand to Iraq Self Rule.

War is not the answer.

And, at present, the 73% will likely agree the war now is not ours, and the Iraqis may well find clarity of their differences if indeed they have their own opportunity for a SAFE democracy of their own honest elections and representative results that include all the Iraqi people.

This ad ran on CNN in Ohio today.

its about time sen mcain realised the true facts that this country let alone this administration still does not understand the iraqis let alone the larger arab world.
if they secured the borders,perhaps then there maybe a chance of slowing down the carnage
there will still be ethnic cleaning in bagdhad with us or without us,how many americans have to die before we leave

It's amazing how much the wingers hate clean politics and a level playing field. They honestly WANT our government to be sold to the highest bidder, for rich foreign governments [like the saudis] to be able to write legislation againsst US public interest, for global corporations to own congresspeople.

That sounds like treason to me.

They're just fine with having government bureaucrats pawing through their mail and financial/medical records and phone calls, but they squeal like stuck pigs about the 'first amendment' when it comes to curbing campaign finance abuse.

kingofzouk,

You're so right. Everyone should have the unfettered ability to lie one's a** off. Something you certainly avail yourself of quite often in these parts.

Interesting that McCain Feingold will shut up Moveon just before the election. this is free speech? Let them (and anyone) say whatever they want, whenever they want. Let the voters sort it out. Repeal the incumbant protection act....I mean McCain Feingold.

Let's be clear about what MoveOn is really doing: clearing out all of the moderate Republicans from the 2008 GOP field so that an ultra-conservative wins the GOP nod and the Dems can run against an extremist.

I fully expect MoveOn to go after Rudy next, as they pursue one moderate scalp after another.

The statements coming from HIRED pol hacks takes me back to a statement I made a few weeks ago that these folks were hired to tell lies for their employer. This is something I find a lot of the so called savy folk on "The Fix" doesn't have a clue about or are using the "plausable deniabality" defense. The Ky. Gov. race is going as expected, no real news there

wonder what richardson has to say about this?

'Hooray for New Mexico:

Legislator seeks Bush impeachment

SANTA FE -- The 60-session of the state Legislature convenes today with the agenda including ... a call for the impeachment of President Bush and his vice president.
...
Sixty days also allows lawmakers more opportunity to present ... platforms like the resolution asking congress to begin investigation and impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

The author, Sen. Gerald Ortiz Y Pino, D-Albuquerque, said he's been getting calls and e-mails.

"Personal messages from people who said, 'Wow, I'm glad you're doing it; it's something we should be doing." Ortiz Y Pino said. "This particularly built up after the president's speech last week when people began feeling like this guy is not listening to anything going on in the country."

There are constitutional provisions allowing states to make such requests of Congress, he added.'

'AGHDAD, Iraq -- Iran's ambassador said Thursday that Iraq's foreign minister promised him that Iranians captured by U.S. troops in north of the country last week will be freed "within days," adding that their detention was an insult to the Iraqi government and people.'

MoveOn is a huge part of the Democratic success in '06. The Republicans knew how powerful they were becoming in '04 and tried to do everything possible to smear them, and it hasn't stopped trying. All to no avail though. Shrewd moves like this one targeting McCain are the reason why they are feared. Brilliant move!

'10:45am: Sen. Feinstein, a member of both the Judiciary and Intel committees, now up. How many US attorneys have been asked to resign in the past year?

Gonzales: You know.... I don't know the answer to that question. .... We gave you a lot of information in the letter Tuesday. ...

Feinstein: I know of at least six who have been asked to resign. I know we amended the Patriot Act...We did not amend it to prevent the confirmation process from taking place. I have had two of them asked to resign from my state with substantially good records as prosecutors, and I am very concerned. Because technically under the Patriot Act you can appoint someone without confirmation for the remainder of the President's term.

Gonzales: No evidence that is what I am trying to do. [...]

Feinstein: Was there any other reason to ask Bud Cummings of Arkansas to resign other than to put [former RNC opposition researcher and Rove aide] Tim Griffin in?

Gonzales: (won't say). . . .

Leahy: Would it be possible during lunch to get the numbers Sen. Feinstein asked for?

Gonzales: I don't want to have a public discussion about personnel decisions.....

Leahy: Just the numbers . . .'

"As he seeks to chart a new course in Iraq, Bush also faces pervasive resistance and skepticism toward the U.S. commitment -- more than three-fifths of those surveyed said the war was not worth fighting and only one-third approved of his handling of the conflict. And in a striking measure of Bush's declining credibility, half said they believed he deliberately misled the U.S. in making his case for invading Iraq . . .

"Even Bush's political base, a source of support throughout his presidency, showed signs of cracking: about one-fourth of Republicans said they do not believe the war was worth fighting and a roughly equal number opposed the troop increase."

--Rilly Nor'easter, whose advice is mccain following? My guess is neocons -- and that's sure worked out well for bush.

Dick Morris, political strategist turned Fox News commentator had a column in The Hill yesterday, accusing Barack Obama of an "inexplicable pro-nepotism vote."

The Illinois Democrat's offense? "He joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls," Morris wrote. And: "The public will not take kindly to a senator who pledged to clean up the political process" voting in this fashion.

"Why did he vote against it?" Morris added on "Hannity & Colmes." "Because Jesse Jackson's son has his wife on his House payroll, and he didn't want to get him mad at him."

A pretty good issue, if true. But Obama voted for the amendment in question. Morris was flat-out wrong.'

Notice the gratuitous linking of Obama to the winger boogie man Jesse Jackson. Psst--did you notice? They're both BLACK! So clever.

'Laird is either compulsively dishonest in his characterization of the current dynamic or delusional about it, or both. He's at pains to point out that he spent 16 years in Congress and four with Nixon, so it's even money which, but the evidence points toward the last.

By way of warning Congress off the notion of defunding the occupation, Laird naturally turns to his experience with Vietnam. He says South Vietnam could have won if only Congress hadn't cut off their funding.

'The brewing fight in Congress over continued funding of the war in Iraq will not be the country's first. It is an ominous reminder of 1975, when Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War three years after our combat troops had left. With the assistance we promised South Vietnam in the 1972 Paris Accords -- U.S. equipment, replacement parts and ammunition -- it had won every major battle since we left. But Congress lost the will to keep our promise and killed the appropriation. The result was a bloodbath.'

The parallel suffers from a couple of problems, the first being that the South Vietnamese army was on its way to collapse little more than a month after the appropriations vote, which seems a little sudden to be the direct result of it, and the second, that Laird contradicts himself in the next paragraph.

'I spent 16 years in Congress, much of the time on the Appropriations defense subcommittee grilling defense secretaries about the conduct of the Vietnam War. Then, as defense secretary I spent four years on the other side of the table, holding fast to an exit strategy I believed in, "Vietnamization." I never lost a vote during those four years. But it would have been devastating if Congress had cut the purse strings before our troops were withdrawn and before the South Vietnamese had learned to stand on their own.'

The obvious implication being that the South Vietnamese had learned to stand on their own and the cut couldn't be the cause of a collapse that couldn't have happened.'

Does anybody know if Ahmed Chalabi is in McCain's group of advisers?

The video should be working now. Apologies for the delay.

Roll Call reports that yesterday Republican leaders "were fighting a losing battle," as GOP "leadership aides said their party is too fractured on Iraq for a unified position." The Washington Times also concludes "opposition to Mr. Bush's plan is firming up," and Republicans are not coming together.'

JimD's comment, "...many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was a distraction from our campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan." can't be said enough.

In hindsight, why didn't those politicians who truly opposed invading Iraq, but were afraid of being smeared by Rove as being "unpatriotic," simply make their position "To stay in Afghanistan until Al Qaeda is rendered inneffective, and not divert necessary military assets from there?"

I think that they could have had enough political cover with that, but most of them caved under the fear that Rove would do to them what was done to Cleland.

One thing about McCain, he certainly hasn't changed his position on Iraq. No flip-flopper there.

Ya gotta wonder now, when does he realize that a "U. S. military solution" was made irrelevant by Iraqi politics and their Civil War?

It sounds odd, but he's never been through this before, like the rest of his contemporaries. He was shut-off in a Hanoi prison camp while the U. S. as a country went from supporting that war to opposing it. He still has a "1965" mentality. Time to MoveOn, John!

A bipartisan Senate resolution was unveiled yesterday in opposition to President Bush's new Iraq strategy. The New York Times reports "sponsors of the measure said Congressional passage would send a powerful message that the president could not ignore, and its adoption could be a precursor to further efforts by opponents of the war to place limits on his use of the military in Iraq or to limit financing for the war." In a similar story, the Los Angeles Times says the "bipartisan resolution," sponsored by Democratic Sens. Joseph Biden and Carl Levin, and Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, "is the leading tool that congressional opponents of Bush's war plan are using to persuade him to change course. Democrats consider it their best chance to attract broad backing from members of both parties."

The White House went into action, trying to hold Republicans together before the looming Senate battle and media reports suggest the President has his work cut out for him. The AP reports "skeptical Republicans were summoned to private meetings" with Bush and national security adviser Stephen Hadley yesterday at the White House, but the Washington Post says "bipartisan opposition appears to be gaining steam, despite continuing White House efforts to tamp down a congressional revolt.

Gary Masters - That's absolutely true. My sense is that other venues will eventually replace MoveOn. But the organization is not a problem in and of itself. I just don't feel like donating to it myself any more.

The 'angry left' Chris -- just noticed it. Your republican slip is showing again. Why are you supporting this standard movement conservative canard? What about the Angry Right? What about all the winger posters foaming at the mouth about Clinton and other irrelevancies? So-called movement 'conservatives' are perpetually angry and hateful and whining about one thing or another. So why not write about that?

Does every 'journailist' have to write like a sheep? Do you ever think? Or do you just accept rightwing framing?

Maybe if you did you'd realize a lot of traditional conservatives are angry too, angry that kids in their community are getting blown away for no particular reason, in one of the worst military blunders in history.

MoveOn is totally grassroots supported -- that's why the repug corporatists hate and fear and attack it whenever possible.

Chris Cillizza:
"Being attacked by Moveon might actually help McCain among the more conservative voters who revile the organization as a potent symbol of the angry left."

During the 90's Republicans falsely insinuated that the left could match their spending. Now that such is actually happening, we can only laugh. They rang the alarm bells too early! Now comes the overrun.

Move On is not a problem. Either they have reasonable things to say or they go too far. Most people can understand what is too far and will either discount it or perhaps favor the other side. If a person has confidence in the intelligence of the voter, there is no reason but to want Move On to speak up and often. Time will tell who is right.

If I say something bad about MoveOn, will you post my post?

I for one applaud the ads and hope MoveOn will be so generous as to run them in South Carolina, the primary state that has forced the poor man to abandon his straight-talking strategy that spelled his doom 7 years ago. Maybe then he would win and could go back to his original self.......

(secretly hoping for a McCain, Edwards 2008 battle).......

google joints chiefs of staff and scroll to the bottom and click contact us - tell general pace that we need a coup d'etat now - tell him no stalingrad in baghdad - coup george armstrong custer bush before he leads us into the valley of the little big horn - via iraq syria and iran - tell him to adhere to his oath of protecting the constitution from enemies - foreign and domestic - because the world cant wait

'She's stood by him but now knows that he'll dump anyone to save himself, that he's disloyal to the loyal.
Her new diplomatic assignment in the Middle East beats a sudden Rumsfeld-like dismissal, but not by much. She will help guarantee failure because she is not an effective negotiator - too much telling and very little listening, too obsessed with the one way of achieving a single goal rather than options for achieving multiple, similar ones. Like our Plan A President, when she has a principle or course of action she's like a pit bull. In short, Secretary Rice is the right person for the job of failing to negotiate and thereby making a war with Iran look like a last resort. But where would that leave her?

Strained relations between the President and his Secretary of State may be speculation, yet there's often truth in rigorous forms and something is not quite right in that relationship. Rice knows far too much for the President to let her go, but he seems to be putting distance between the two of them. He has given more praise and nods of approval lately to Joe Lieberman than he's given to her. John Negroponte, a powerful and experienced diplomat, is on her heels. Something is indeed amiss.'

one person's 'lockstep' is another's 'discipline'..

'Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Bill Clinton all seemed to understand that the United States should only attack nations that cannot fight back. Their target countries were always nearly defenseless. Reagan invaded the tiny island of Grenada, he bombed Libya, and ran CIA wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. George H.W. Bush attacked Panama, and then Iraq, which had been severely degraded after its eight-year war with Iran. Clinton throttled Serbia at a time when it was weakened by civil war and its economy was suffering.

If the Neo-Cons who formulate policy for the Bush Administration, along with their Likhudnik allies, convince Bush to strike Iran they will be sparking a real war with a nation that can and will fight back. With its 70 million people, high literacy rate, key geographic location, level of economic development, and its control of a significant share of the world's oil production, Iran is a nation that could cause quite a stir if Bush is dim-witted enough to go down that terrible road.'

Several years ago I was a MoveOn member but I quit because their lockstep attitude started to seem behind the times.

It took forever to get off their email list. MoveOn indeed.

I agree with most of the principles for which MoveOn fights. But their approach is, to me, distasteful because in my opinion it is lockstep. In the long run I do not think that any lockstep tactic can last in a democracy. In a democracy, lockstep tactics backfire sooner or later. Only freedom is stable in a democracy.

There must be a more stable way to achieve the goals most MoveOn members care about. Perhaps one that allows for personal freedom of expression by individual Democrats, who do not always agree about everything.

' A Democratic resolution on Iraq has attracted the support of at least two Republicans and is exposing fissures within the GOP over the unpopular war.

Congressional Republicans are struggling to come up with a united response to President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to join the estimated 130,000 already there.

Ten Republicans met behind closed doors late Wednesday with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record), R-Ky., in a bid to generate consensus on Iraq. The senators emerged from the meeting to announce that no deal had been reached.

"This is a very fluid situation," said Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

The meeting came after Sens. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, both Republicans who have sparred with the administration on the war, announced that they would co-sponsor the Democrats' resolution opposing sending more troops to Iraq.

"To feed more American troops into this bloodbath is wrong," Hagel said Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America." In the end, he said, Iraqis must determine their own future.'

' Indeed, the press corps and cable TV went mad yesterday trying to prove that Clinton had canceled her post-Iraq-trip press conference yesterday because she was worried about being eclipsed by Obama's announcement.

The Clinton people tried to explain that the schedule change took place because a fellow member of Congress set to attend had fallen sick. But that didn't stop the Washington Post's Dana Milbank from devoting virtually an entire column to this question, skewering Clinton spokesperson Philippe Reines' explanation that the sick Congressman had stayed behind in Iraq to recover as follows:

"We knew that yesterday, but didn't have a new time for tomorrow because the members were in the air, and because the Radio & TV Gallery was closed yesterday," Reines continued in his email. "We were only able to lock it in this morning."

And we lost the phone number. And the dog ate my homework. And I think I hear my mom calling.

It was awfully early in a presidential campaign to be getting so defensive -- but such is the tone of the accelerated 2008 race.

Mr. Milbank, I have to ask you, just, you know, because. Just who the heckl do you think is setting "the tone for the accelerated 2008 race"? Hmmmmm, I just haven't the foggiest notion who on earth could be in charge of setting "the tone" in the media...unless...(gasp!)...it's THE MEDIA?! Oh, my god! Call Matt Drudge! This needs to be a BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING police-sirens-and-everything exclusive scoop. The media is bit**ing about how snippy things are getting...in the media.

You know, that's kind of like Republicans complaining that the House rules unfairly exclude the minority party. Yeah, cry me a river.'

Is the whole press corps vying to see who can sink to the slime level of druge?

It's the typical rovian attack dog posture -- ignore the substance and attack the messenger. This is what repugs always do--standard distraction. I always think of a cartoon I saw of Dick Cheney with his hand in a cookie jar, pointing off to the side -- 'Look over there--it's bin Ladin!'

The press, sadly, always falls for it.

Isn't the real news here McCain's baseless attach on MoveOn? I smell desperation ...

Monday's NYT report by John Burns, Sabrina Tavernise and Marc Santora focuses on the continuing "wrangling" between US and Iraqi military officials over how the US forces would work with the Iraqis, and particularly how the joint command structure would work. The American commanders are clearly troubled:

"We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem," said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. "We are being played like a pawn."

Maliki's insisted on naming the overall commander of the security forces in Badgdad. The commander will be an Iraqi General personally loyal to al-Maliki, and someone the US Commanders do not know and do not trust. Together Mr. al-Maliki and his hand-picked general will decide when and where to implement the new security strategy. The Americans got to help pick his two deputies, but the combined US/Iraq command structure appears to be an unproven experiment:

Still, the new command structure seemed rife with potential for conflict. An American military official said that the arrangements appeared unwieldy, and at odds with military doctrine calling for a clear chain of command. "There's no military definition for 'partnered,' " he said.

I too, could not get the video to work.

I wonder why Move On hasn't targeted Arizona as well with this ad.

I too, could not get the video to work.

I wonder why Move On hasn't targeted Arizona as well with this ad. Even

I am not a MoveOn.org follower but I agree with Tom Matzzie's analysis of McCain's political standing. The Republican base deeply distrusts him. His support among moderates is wearing thin. His main appeal to many Republicans is the belief that he can win the election based on a perceived ability to win over independent voters. Shatter that illusion and his candidacy disintegrates. Giuliani will probably be the main beneficiary of that.

I see that Mccain's spokesman has taken lessons from Rove. Note the reference to "a liberal group opposed to military action after 9/11". Rove and his minions have repeatedly tried to conflate opposition to the fiasco in Iraq to opposition to all military action against terrorist threats. Most people I know who oppose the war in Iraq fully support the war in Afghanistan. In fact, many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq because it was a distraction from our campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Now I suppose we'll hear something totally off-topic and nonsenical from our factually and intelectually challenged R posters. Maybe something Jimmy Carter did in 1971. Or Calvin Coolidge or something equally relevant...or maybe the ramblings of the senile and rapidly-becoming deranged Rwing corporatist hacks like bill kristol...

Behold! The full text of the nonbinding resolution introduced today by Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

The key line: "it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States presence in Iraq."

'MCCAIN'S ASSAULT ON MOVEON.ORG FALLS APART RAPIDLY UNDER SCRUTINY.

Paging Wolf Blitzer: Please read this the next time you feel inclined to say that John McCain "likes straight talk."

'Today MoveOn launched a TV ad slamming John McCain for his escalation plan for Iraq. As Atrios noted earlier today, the McCain campaign responded to the ad with a counter-attack on the organization.

But it turns out McCain's response (surprise!) is at best unproven and at worst completely false. It certainly doesn't constitute "straight talk." Here's what McCain said:

Danny Diaz, a McCain spokesperson, responded to MoveOn's ad by telling ABC News: "MoveOn.Org is an out-of-the-mainstream organization that has a long history of airing inflammatory material, even comparing the President to Hitler. It is not surprising that a liberal group opposed to military action after September 11th would attack Senator McCain's conservative values, as well as changing strategy and securing victory in Iraq."
Did MoveOn compare the President to Hitler, and did the group oppose military action after Sept. 11, as the McCain campaign is charging?

I emailed McCain's spokesman Diaz and asked for substantiation of these two charges. For the first one -- that MoveOn compared Bush to Hitler -- Diaz sent over a quote from a January 6, 2004 article in the Washington Post. It said that "videos" appeared on MoveOn's web site comparing Bush to Hitler as part of a contest for an anti-Bush TV ad. Here's what Diaz didn't quote but also appeared in the same article (via Nexis):

The Hitler spots were among more than 1,500 submissions; MoveOn members have selected 15 finalists. The Hitler ads "lost miserably," said Eli Pariser, the fund's campaign director. Pariser said: "Anyone in the public could submit an ad."...Voter Fund President Wes Boyd said the group's officials "deeply regret" that the ads "slipped through our screening process."
So, no reasonable person could continue to pretend that the organization itself made the Bush-Hitler comparison. One down.

What about the second charge -- that MoveOn opposed military action after Sept. 11?

To back that one up, Diaz pointed to a September 21, 2001 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It said MoveOn founder Joan Blades claimed her group had collected 30,000 signatures since the attacks on a statement calling for "justice, not escalating violence that would only play into the terrorists' hands."

This is ambiguous at best, barring a look at the full statement. I called MoveOn and they claimed adamantly that the group hadn't opposed military action. They sent over this statement, which they said was their most forceful petition on what the U.S. should do in responding to the attacks. Here's the key part:

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Union, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.
This is not outright opposition to military action. Rather, it's a request that the U.S. and other powers avoid war "wherever possible" in pursuit of the goal of "bringing to justice those responsible for the attacks," a goal that the group clearly endorses here. What's more, MoveOn founders Eli Pariser and Joan Blades strongly denied ever opposing military action as early as December of 2004. At the time they wrote in The New Republic that "we never in fact opposed targeted military action against Al Qaeda and its Taliban backers in Afghanistan." Barring better evidence, this second McCain charge could be true, but remains unproven.

So: The first McCain charge is completely, demonstrably false. The second: Unclear, but without question as yet unproven.

One thing is clear: This statement from the McCain camp is anything but straight talk. So McCain wouldn't like it or sanction it.

Right, Wolf?'

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/01/post_4.php

The GOP never does anything but vicious attack ads without a shred of truth or integrity. They compared Max Cleland, a man who lost his limbs in serving this country, to Osama bin Ladin, for godsakes.There really is no sewer too deep for them, no filth into which they will not gladly wade.

Seventy-one employees in the Executive Office of the President, which includes the White House, owe $664,527 in taxes for 2005. About 20 of those employees have entered into an IRS payment plan, bringing the EOP balance down to $455,881owed by 50 employees.
The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment

Maliki disputed President Bush's remarks broadcast Tuesday that the execution of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "looked like it was kind of a revenge killing" and took exception to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Senate testimony last week that Maliki's administration was on "borrowed time."
The prime minister said statements such as Rice's "give morale boosts for the terrorists and push them toward making an extra effort and making them believe they have defeated the American administration," Maliki said. "But I can tell you that they have not defeated the Iraqi government."...

Maliki spoke slowly and seriously for most of the conversation, but occasionally broke into a smile, such as when he was asked whether Bush needs him more than he needs Bush. "This is an evil question," he said, laughing.'

Maliki is laughing at your moron president, gop'ers, jerking him around like a monkey on a chain. He's humiliating us in front of the whole worl and making us look weak and stupid.. Why do republicans hate America so much?

Just meant to add:

Of course, the least expression of dissent against Chimpy McHitlerburtonâ„¢ is completely different, and beyond the bounds of legitimate debate. This especially in a time of perpetual war.

(That was fun)

Ah, right. And don't forget, the Hitler ads were removed from the MoveOn servers when they came to light. Handled a little differently than the extremist right-wing group "The GOP" which actually produced, and paid to broadcast commercials in 2002 that compared prominent Democratic politicians to Osama bin-Laden. V. classy.

Just want to point out that McCain's spokesman doesn't respond to the substance of the ads and slurs MoveOn. The videos comparing Bush to Hitler were submitted by a individual members as part of a contest and never broadcast. And how many million members (currently over 3M) do they need before they become mainstream?

'Nother thing, Chris -- you say the ads 'intend to label' McCain 'as the leading supporter' -- of sending more troops. He IS, along with Joe Loserman, the leading supporter. That's a fact. Do you still recognize those?

Now when are you going to do a profile on the hundreds of heavily-corporate funded rightwing hit squads who are continuously sliming democrats?

Hey Tom! Good to see ya. You're absolutely right... check out what darksider Novak has to say about it:

'The sense of impending political doom that clutches Republican hearts one week after President Bush presented his new strategy on Iraq to the nation is stoked by the alarming intelligence brought back from Baghdad by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and passed around Capitol Hill.

In a pre-Christmas visit to Iraq, Coleman and Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida met with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government's national security adviser. Coleman described their astounding encounter in a Dec. 19 blog entry: Dr. Rubaie "maintains that the major challenge facing Iraq is not a sectarian conflict, but rather al-Qaeda and disgruntled Baathists seeking to regain power. Both Senator Nelson and I react with incredulity to that assessment. Rubaie cautions against more troops in Baghdad."

Rubaie denied the overriding reality of sectarian violence in Baghdad because his government is tied to the Shiite belligerents in that conflict. While Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pays lip service to Bush's demand that he crack down on Mahdi Army commander Moqtada al-Sadr, U.S. officials recognize that Maliki's political support depends on the Shiite militia leader. Thus, Maliki's government is in denial about sectarian conflict. Maliki did not show up for a news conference in which he was scheduled to comment on Bush's new strategy, and he personally remains silent about the plan at this writing.

This hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating condition as soon as possible. "Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party," a prominent party strategist told me this week. What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush's principal political advisers.'

McCain cynically supported this 'surge' even though even he doesn't think it will work. He deserves to have it hung around his neck like a rotting carcass.

The Republican Party's true maverick at this point is Chuck Hagel not John McCain. McCain has become an enabler of the Bush Administration's criminal enterprise in Iraq. He has blood on his hands.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

I'm on a cable connection and can't get the video to work. What's with all the buffering and connecting? Hasn't MOVEON heard of YouTube?

NH ads are targeted to independent voters, the voters who won the NH primary for McCain in 2000. I gave $1000 to McCain in 2000 but could no longer vote for him. He has sold his soul to pursue the GOP nod in '08.

Frankly, I imagine Moveon would be thrilled if their efforts to permanently associate McCain with the "surge" helped him win the primary, on the theory that would ultimately result in the GOP having a greater chance of losing the general.

Personally, though, my sense is there is a growing trend in the GOP to back away from this policy, and it isn't particularly limited to "moderates" in the GOP (versus "conservatives"). So, by 2008 the GOP as a whole, including "conservatives", could well be looking for a nominee with at least some distance from this policy (e.g., perhaps Brownback or Huckabee).

Chris asserts his belief that the ad will have little impact on John McCain. That is a false conclusion. McCain's current support is both shallow and broad. A deterioration in his support among more moderate voters (who are infuriated about Iraq) will topple his numbers. Further, there is no evidence that the conservative base will reward him for pushing escalation in Iraq. As the Post noted 1/17 in an article about McCain and James Dobson, conservative leaders aren't opening their doors to him. Further, while the MoveOn ad campaign is an effort to stop escalation in Iraq, it will demonstrate that the senator is a cynical political operator playing politics with Iraq policy. The strategy is on target.