Do you think the Move On Ad went too far?

Question

The President spoke up against it. The Senate censured it. But Move On members did not apologize for the slam against General Petraous and his Iraq Report. Do you think the Liberal organization went too far? If so, why didn't the President and the Senate censure the Swift Boat Ads. Both Ads concern military personnel. If John Kerry's reputation less important than that of General Petraous? Or should these hateful Ads be banned altogether?

Answer 1

No it didn't go too far. It spoke the truth in a sensational way. It got a lot of attention and those Democrats who voted to censure it should be ashamed. If you didn't write it or publish it, what the hell are you apologizing for! It's a pun, for God's sake!
Fox news, the President and Republicans who made such a big deal over it conveniently forget Swift Boat Ads. But that's what they do, they divert attention from the important topics and get everyone running in the wrong direction instead of keeping to the real topic. Mis-information, Mis-direction are the two things Bush et al do best. And this time they suckered 22 Democrats to go along with them!
Barack Obama had the sense not to give them the satisfaction of even voting on it. It's a non-issue that deserves no discussion in light of all the vitally important issues we need to deal with.

Hopefully, Move On will run an ad about Blackwater and all the other contractors that are making billions of dollars off of us and accomplishing nothing! There are more civilian Americans over there than military personnel, and no one asks questions about that and what we are paying them for.

Answer 2

No, Moveon.org was expressing what they, and their members, felt. No it nothing should be banned. Moveon.org, along with it's members, have a right to their opinion. Some people may not agree with it, but it is still their opinion. A right that is given to them by a higher power other than the government or any one else. Therefore, nobody has the right to take that away from them. Besides, if someone is in a leadership position criticism comes with it being in the military doesn't exempt them from this. And restricting it would do nothing more but put more power in the hands of the government and infringe on the rights of the people. If we start banning those who speak out against the government, or the people who they appoint, how can we be a free country and not a police state? Keep in mind the very thing that makes this country different from others is the fact that we have the freedom to criticize our government and maintain our opinions about things such as this. We don't need the Thought Police policing our every thought. We are suppose to be the government's employers, meaning they work for us, not the other way around. And if we feel that the government, or it's constituents, are not doing a good job we need to criticize them. They are doing no more than what has gone on all throughout American history. We need to realize that we may not agree on each others opinion, but it is still their's and no one has no right to restrict it just because they like they don't their opinion. Of course, this would extend to the attacks on John Kerry and any other ad whether it be consertive or liberal. Unfortunately, people want to restrict things they don't agree with. And this is why we have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution, to allow freedom for all not just certain groups.

Answer 3

I think the ad was in very poor taste. But, I found Rudy's response ad to be even worse. You ask a very good question about the swift boating ads. It begs the obvious answer that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But, I think that MoveOn and the Democrats in general need to be careful that they don't fall into the trap of using smear tactics on a regular basis. The Republicans have become notorious for running their campaigns in that way, and it's part of what the American people are rejecting from them. If the Democrats begin doing the same they'll lose the advantage it gives them to stay above that sort of thing. MoveOn would have done much better to just print everything below the sensational headline and forgo the play on words. Because really, everything they stated was absolutely true. But no one remembers the text in the ad anymore, all they remember is the headline. A tactical mistake in my opinion.

It would be almost impossible to outlaw what many of us see as "hate" ads. Freedom of speech gets squarely in the way of that. I don't like it at all, but it's part of the political landscape.

Answer 4

Although I found the ads "troubling" to a point, the fact of the matter is that Generals and Admirals are products of the political system. A soldier (generic) doesn't simply gain a promotion into those ranks like all of his other promotions. Generals and Admirals are NOMINATED by Presidents and CONFIRMED/ or DENIED by the Senate. Therefore, I don't have a problem with their political bias' being called into question. They are a part of the process.They are much more POLITICIAN at that level than they are FIGHTER/WARRIOR. It is just a fact of our system....
*

Answer 5

SARCASM MODE Oh no, i don't think of phony infantrymen and the flow On every person is going too some distance. never. not interior the least. they are able to insult the protection tension slightly extra in the event that they want (positioned up components proving that), it particularly is cool, they are not overdoing it purely yet. --- particularly, what in the international style of query is this? via fact it particularly is the dumbest i've got examine later on. Are you ranting, are you thoroughly ignorant appropriate to the priority or are you purely finding for a debate? --- And no, Jesse MacBeth replaced into basically some fool who tried to make the protection tension look undesirable via fact they kicked him out. in case you think of the entire concern replaced into surely some "liberal" plot, probability is you're extra gullible than you think of.

Answer 6

The SwiftBoat ads weren't censured because the Republicans were in control of the House and the Senate and Bush wouldn't have had a chance against Kerry if he denounced those ads. Denouncing those ads would have meant that Kerry was a hero and Bush was a rich kid who got out of going to war 'cause his daddy pulled some strings.
I think what MoveOn.org was going for was to point out that General Petraeus' report was not written by him, but was either written by the Bush administration or at least influenced by someone within the administration. In that respect, the General did not only betray the American people, but he betrayed our troops over in Iraq. The General owes it to both to tell the TRUTH and not just walk in lock step with what the Bush Administration and their cronies want.
Don't the Congress and the Senate have better things to do with our tax dollars than waste time denouncing MoveOn.org? What next, are they going to be reading the Op/Ed sections of newspapers and denouncing those articles too. There are many lives at stake over in Iraq. The lives of our troops and the lives of the Iraqi civilians. Neither should have been put in harm's way like they have been these last four and a half years.
I don't agree with censorship of any kind. But if you're going to censor one side, then the other side has to be censored as well. And that means if MoveOn.org can't run an ad, then Ann Coulter can't run her columns in whatever rag they run in and Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage and Limbaugh can't spew their hatred over the airwaves, in news paper columns or in books anymore...On second thought, censorship's not looking so bad...

Answer 7

I think the actions taken by Congress were appropriate, in that their jobs are to represent us and Americans were angry. Our nation is at war and our General was coming to speak to Congress. It was disgusting.

The Swift Boat ads occurred during political campaigning. Campaign ads have been over the top for years, but both sides do it and Americans accept it.

If we all learn to be more discerning about what we are sold, then at least something good comes out of it. Just because it is on television doesn't mean we have to buy it.

Since last September, I have seen Liberals generalizing all Conservatives based on the actions of a few individuals, so let's not go there.

Answer 8

No,,, at the same time I don't agree with them attacking someone in this way but a general and the Pentagon should be open to criticism... these ARE political institutions.

The problem with people criticizing MoveOn.com on this one incident is that people are implying that we absolutely should not criticize a general that has served this nation... that would be like that we can not criticize Presidents Clinton and Bush because they served the nation... that senators now can't be criticized because they served the nation... I think MoveOn.com used a immature tactic but it isn't any different from the Limbaughs or Hannities or Coulters out there criticizing Bill Clinton on the most inane points.... or Al Franken and Rosie O'Donnell attacking Bush.

Let free speech remain free.

Answer 9

I like the comparison to Swift Boat :-)

Still, this is a tricky question, because it depends on how I define "too far." They didn't break any laws, but they showed bad taste and left other liberals open to accusation-by-association. It's kind of like when PETA runs an obnoxious ad comparing meat-eating to cannibalism... it makes things harder on the less extreme animal rights activists.

In the end, moveon.org showed who they are and where they stand, for better or worse.

Answer 10

I don't think Move On went too far. I think they didn't go far enough. They should have referred to what is happening in Iraq as a Genocide, which is what it is (the government's policies over the last 20 years have killed almost 2 million Iraqis, so it is the worst genocide since the Holocaust).

While I do think there is more of a case to regulating political speech rather than commercial or other speech (because political speech is usually deceptive and advocating criminal activity), but it is still an indefensible position (because if we regulated political speech to prevent leftists from calling for stealing and Neo-Cons from calling for murder, the same regulations would be used against people who are promoting good causes).