the continued undoing of democracy

[Guest Paul]

Imagine that a liberal Congress and President control our government, as one day they will. Imagine a liberal Congress passing a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for expressing his ridiculous, fact-free political views on the air. Their justification is that he says things that have no basis in fact, and they'd be right; he does it all the time. Responding to the political pressure, sponsors pull out, and stations pull Limbaugh off the air. Right-wing pundits with similar views are also pulled, and the airwaves are left with a diet of middle-to-left public discourse because everything to the right of center has been deemed unacceptable. In time, the center shifts further and further to the left, until the only comments anyone is allowed to make publicly are far left. Would conservatives say we were on the brink of (or in) a left-wing tyranny? They'd be right.

Yesterday the US Senate passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for its print ad, which argued that Gen. Petraeus betrayed the American people by allowing himself to become Bush's political puppet to prop up the war. Agree or disagree with them, there is plenty of reason to think Bush set this up, knew what Petraeus was going to say long before he said it (since Bush had control over it) and plenty of reason to question Petraeus' integrity. True or false, the opinion is MoveOn's to express as they see fit.

When the US Senate makes official pronouncements about what content is appropriate to utter in public, the USA is on the road to a dictatorship. We have time to stop it, but that is the direction the Senate took us yesterday, and the Bush administration has been taking us ever since 9/11. So-called "conservatives" who applaud what the Senate just did should think long and hard about how they are going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot, and being shoved . . .

I urge people to contact everyone you can think of to bring this to people's attention.

[Bryan]

Paul the blowhard is at it again.

Imagine that a liberal Congress and President control our government, as one day they will.

The Democrats currently control Congress.

Imagine a liberal Congress passing a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for expressing his ridiculous, fact-free political views on the air.  Their justification is that he says things that have no basis in fact, and they'd be right; he does it all the time.

What, no example?

Responding to the political pressure, sponsors pull out, and stations pull Limbaugh off the air.

What type of political pressure would really make a sponsor pull out, other than legislation?

Right-wing pundits with similar views are also pulled, and the airwaves are left with a diet of middle-to-left public discourse because everything to the right of center has been deemed unacceptable. In time, the center shifts further and further to the left, until the only comments anyone is allowed to make publicly are far left. Would conservatives say we were on the brink of (or in) a left-wing tyranny? They'd be right.

We've pretty much been through that scenario already, with the Fairness Doctrine.

Yesterday the US Senate passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for its print ad, which argued that Gen. Petraeus betrayed the American people by allowing himself to become Bush's political puppet to prop up the war.

Paul forgot to mention that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate. The Republicans aren't passing anything at all that isn't at least a little bit bipartisan.

"The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad ..."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...e-condemn_N.htm

Evidently LaClair finds roughly half the Senate Democrats not far enough to the left to qualify as "liberal."

Agree or disagree with them, there is plenty of reason to think Bush set this up, knew what Petraeus was going to say long before he said it (since Bush had control over it) and plenty of reason to question Petraeus' integrity. True or false, the opinion is MoveOn's to express as they see fit.

Bush set it up, eh?

Do tell.

When the US Senate makes official pronouncements about what content is appropriate to utter in public, the USA is on the road to a dictatorship.

What a blowhard! Here's what the Senate passed:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-315

Basically, the bill expresses the "sense of the Senate" majority in a strictly free-speech way. Apparently that type of free speech rankles free-speech advocate LaClair.

We have time to stop it, but that is the direction the Senate took us yesterday, and the Bush administration has been taking us ever since 9/11. So-called "conservatives" who applaud what the Senate just did should think long and hard about how they are going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot, and being shoved . . .

If the Senate shifts that far to the left then the worry will be how the conquering government will treat us, not how the US government treats us.

I urge people to contact everyone you can think of to bring this to people's attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We must quickly quash the ability of the Senate to to freely express its majority sense--in the name of free expression!

[Guest Patriot]

Imagine that a liberal Congress and President control our government, as one day they will. Imagine a liberal Congress passing a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for expressing his ridiculous, fact-free political views on the air. Their justification is that he says things that have no basis in fact, and they'd be right; he does it all the time. Responding to the political pressure, sponsors pull out, and stations pull Limbaugh off the air. Right-wing pundits with similar views are also pulled, and the airwaves are left with a diet of middle-to-left public discourse because everything to the right of center has been deemed unacceptable. In time, the center shifts further and further to the left, until the only comments anyone is allowed to make publicly are far left. Would conservatives say we were on the brink of (or in) a left-wing tyranny? They'd be right.

Yesterday the US Senate passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for its print ad, which argued that Gen. Petraeus betrayed the American people by allowing himself to become Bush's political puppet to prop up the war. Agree or disagree with them, there is plenty of reason to think Bush set this up, knew what Petraeus was going to say long before he said it (since Bush had control over it) and plenty of reason to question Petraeus' integrity. True or false, the opinion is MoveOn's to express as they see fit.

When the US Senate makes official pronouncements about what content is appropriate to utter in public, the USA is on the road to a dictatorship. We have time to stop it, but that is the direction the Senate took us yesterday, and the Bush administration has been taking us ever since 9/11. So-called "conservatives" who applaud what the Senate just did should think long and hard about how they are going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot, and being shoved . . .

I urge people to contact everyone you can think of to bring this to people's attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

Imagine if everyone had Paul's limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

[Guest Paul]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know you personally, but I have the urge to vomit anyway. "Shouldn't be slandered," says Patriot. In the first place, he's a public figure, MoveOn's statement is a political opinion and as such is not subject to a charge of slander absent extraordinary circumstances not present here. That's as a matter of law.

Put the shoe on the other foot, as I suggested. What if a liberal Congress one day decides to attack Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter? What then?

Oh, and by the way, this is not World War II. Nice try.

[Guest Guest]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush set Petraeus up as a part of the political operation to suppor the war. Petraeus went along. They can't have it both ways. Having made the general a part of the political operation, they have to take the political criticism that comes their way. Members of Congress have a right to their opinion, but they shouldn't use their power to condemn private groups for expressing theirs.

[Guest Guest]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paulie is into pissing people off.

[Guest Guest]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I find interesting is that while all of the key board commandoes are criticizing Moveon.org, they aren't disputing the essence of the ad.

General Patreaus was sent to the Hill as a proxy for the President. If anyone should have testified it should have been either the President or at-least the Secretary of Defense. There is no question that the General is an honorable man who has been placed in an impossible position. On the one hand he had to give a report that was essentially written by the White House, that he had to know or should have known was not factually correct. This has been born out by not only the Defense Department and the GAO but at-least two other Government reports or go and try to answer the questions in the context they were asked so that the honor of the men he commands could remain intact. In other words he should not have had to carry the White Houses water. Thats not his job.

And as usual, they fail to miss what Paul's point is. And also just as usual they attack anyone who disagrees with them.

So let me ask this question to Patriot and his followers. Where was your outrage in 2000 when the Bush people worked with the religious right attacking John Mc Cain in the South Carolina Primary by lying about his adopted child? Where was their outrage when Max Cleland, a triple amputee Viet Nam veteran was attacked by the right in Georgia? and where was the outrage when John Kerry, a Silver Star recipient was attacked by the Swift Boat Ads that weren't true? Why weren't they writing their Senators asking for comdenation. Because they believed everything they saw and heard without question.

Moveon.org has the same right to print what they believe is the truth just like any other organization like it or not. As far as the Senate is concerned they would have been better served if they had passed the Webb/Hagel amendment giving the troops as much time at home as they spent in Iraq. I guess that was less important to the commandoes than condemning an ad that in actuality most americans didn't see or read since as 2dim put was only printed in the NY Slimes.

So I'll say it again, Paul the free thinkers get it. The authoritarions never will.

[Guest Radagast]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Petraeus works for the President. He is not going to say anything that the President doesn't clear. The only generals that have spoken out against the war are retired and beyond the reach of BushCo. That said, he has just as much right to express his views as MoveOn.Com does. The Senate has the right to be wimps and carry water for BushCo because they think the majority of Americans were impressed with the empty uniform they listened to. The majority opinion hasn't changed. Very few bought into the BS.

I am a contributing member of MoveOn.Com and I believe he knows enough about Iraq to know the truth. Therefore, he lied. Pure and simple. His lies will get more US Troops killed. He betrayed this country.

[Guest Guest]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WOW! We have something in common, the urge to vomit.

I have it everytime I read the self-righteous blathering drivel you write being done under the name PatRat.

If you're unwilling to acceot freedom of speech and press move away where you belong you REMF WANKER!

[Guest Guest]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since it's the written word you're whining about it would be libel not slander you nitwit. But that would be if it were untrue you whining little pissant.

[Guest Radagast]

Paul's upset that there's democratic members of congress that believe

    General Petraeus is a military hero that shouldn't be slandered by a radical

    left web site that hates america. In Paul's warped mind, condemning MoveOn

    is tantamount to dictatorship. I say thank God for people like General Petraeus.

    Imagine if everyone had Paul's  limp-wristed, spineless attitude, we would be

    all be in servitude to the Japanese and Nazis. I'm glad I don't know Paul

    personally, I'd have the urge to vomit whenever I saw him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry ... finger slip ... that's MoveOn.org ... we're looking more like .com since we've raised almost $2 million after the Senate bad mouthed us. Now, if only the President and the Senate would call me 'disgusting' ... I could stop buying lottery tickets!

[Guest Guest]

Paul the blowhard is at it again.

The Democrats currently control Congress.

What, no example?

What type of political pressure would really make a sponsor pull out, other than legislation?

We've pretty much been through that scenario already, with the Fairness Doctrine.

Paul forgot to mention that the Democrats have a majority in the Senate.  The Republicans aren't passing anything at all that isn't at least a little bit bipartisan.

"The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad ..."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...e-condemn_N.htm

Evidently LaClair finds roughly half the Senate Democrats not far enough to the left to qualify as "liberal."

Bush set it up, eh? 

Do tell.

What a blowhard!  Here's what the Senate passed:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-315

Basically, the bill expresses the "sense of the Senate" majority in a strictly free-speech way.  Apparently that type of free speech rankles free-speech advocate LaClair.

If the Senate shifts that far to the left then the worry will be how the conquering government will treat us, not how the US government treats us.

We must quickly quash the ability of the Senate to to freely express its majority sense--in the name of free expression!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this guy take stupid pills? Apparently he overlooked this part of the resolution: "Whereas a recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces." That last part is a ridiculous claim. MoveOn didn't attack all the members of the armed forces. That statement is a bald-faced lie. And there's no doubt that MoveOn.org was specifically targeted by this resolution. It's despicable.

Second, this is not about Republicans and Democrats, or it shouldn't be. This guy can't see beyond party. He also neglects to mention the fact that the Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate, not enough to overcome the constant threats of filibuster from the Republicans. The Republcans have become the obstructionist party. In this instance, 22 spineless Democrats joined forty-some brainless Republicans in passing this idiotic resolution, on the same day when they failed to do anything to help get us out of a war that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

Finally, you want an example of political pressure inducing media to pull someone off the air. Have you forgotten the abuse the Dixie Chicks took for saying what most Americans now agree with?

The point of free speech is that the guy with the minority view might be right. If we stifle opinions we don't like (especially if it's done to score political points), which is exactly what this is, we only harm ourselves.

[Guest Patriot]

Does this guy take stupid pills? Apparently he overlooked this part of the resolution: "Whereas a recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces." That last part is a ridiculous claim. MoveOn didn't attack all the members of the armed forces. That statement is a bald-faced lie. And there's no doubt that MoveOn.org was specifically targeted by this resolution. It's despicable.

Second, this is not about Republicans and Democrats, or it shouldn't be. This guy can't see beyond party. He also neglects to mention the fact that the Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate, not enough to overcome the constant threats of filibuster from the Republicans. The Republcans have become the obstructionist party. In this instance, 22 spineless Democrats joined forty-some brainless Republicans in passing this idiotic resolution, on the same day when they failed to do anything to help get us out of a war that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

Finally, you want an example of political pressure inducing media to pull someone off the air. Have you forgotten the abuse the Dixie Chicks took for saying what most Americans now agree with?

The point of free speech is that the guy with the minority view might be right. If we stifle opinions we don't like (especially if it's done to score political points), which is exactly what this is, we only harm ourselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"If we stifle opinions" ?? MoveOn accuses the top general in Iraq of treason,

which is exactly what betraying implies, and a Kool-aider calls it an "opinion"??

Only a LoonyLeft, Kool-aid drinking Defeatocrat could or would do that.

"Guest", you're a disgrace, you don't deserve to live in America.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Petraeus works for the President. He is not going to say anything that the President doesn't clear. The only generals that have spoken out against the war are retired and beyond the reach of BushCo. That said, he has just as much right to express his views as MoveOn.Com does. The Senate has the right to be wimps and carry water for BushCo because they think the majority of Americans were impressed with the empty uniform they listened to. The majority opinion hasn't changed. Very few bought into the BS.

I am a contributing member of MoveOn.Com and I believe he knows enough about Iraq to know the truth. Therefore, he lied. Pure and simple. His lies will get more US Troops killed. He betrayed this country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kool-aid alert !!

[Guest Senior Kearny Resident]

I don't know you personally, but I have the urge to vomit anyway. "Shouldn't be slandered," says Patriot. In the first place, he's a public figure, MoveOn's statement is a political opinion and as such is not subject to a charge of slander absent extraordinary circumstances not present here. That's as a matter of law.

Put the shoe on the other foot, as I suggested. What if a liberal Congress one day decides to attack Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter? What then?

Oh, and by the way, this is not World War II. Nice try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MoveOn's accusing the general of treason, a "political opinion" ?? That's about

the most rediculous thing you've ever said.

[Guest Guest]

Bush set Petraeus up as a part of the political operation to suppor the war. Petraeus went along. They can't have it both ways. Having made the general a part of the political operation, they have to take the political criticism that comes their way. Members of Congress have a right to their opinion, but they shouldn't use their power to condemn private groups for expressing theirs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paulie sends one comment as Paul and the second as guest. This makes him get two posts in for the price of one. I guess we are not suppose to suspect this?

[Guest Paul]

MoveOn's accusing the general of treason, a "political opinion" ??  That's about

   the most rediculous thing you've ever said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ad said he betrayed us by selling out to Bush's political agenda to promote the war. There is good reason to believe that; you can't stop people from thinking it, and therefore you can't stop them from saying it. Doesn't matter that you don't agree with it; the whole point of politics is that people disagree.

Funny how you right wingers have no problem with outright slander against Max Cleland, John McCain and John Kerry, but when your ox is being gored for far better reasons, suddenly this sort of thing is off base. We could argue which set of charges is better supported, but that's the essence of politics, isn't it. In McCain's case, they just made stuff up, and about Kerry and Cleland too. Every one of them was an honored war veteran whose integrity was attacked. How can it be OK then, but not now?

You can't have it both ways. Bush made Petraeus a pawn in the political battle over the war. Once he did that, he put Petraeus' integrity on the line, and you can't stop people from wondering why Petraeus allowed it to happen. So you may not like it, but if a case ever went to court over this, political opinion is exactly what this is.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Paulie sends one comment as Paul and the second as guest. This makes him get two posts in for the price of one.    I guess we are not suppose to suspect this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul has many personas; Tom, Guest, Guest, Guest and Guest. What's funny

is they always all agree with one another.

[Guest Guest]

MoveOn's accusing the general of treason, a "political opinion" ??  That's about

  the most rediculous thing you've ever said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2dim, how many times do we have to tell you that it is spelled R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S? There is no E.

[Guest Loki]

Imagine that a liberal Congress and President control our government, as one day they will. Imagine a liberal Congress passing a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for expressing his ridiculous, fact-free political views on the air. Their justification is that he says things that have no basis in fact, and they'd be right; he does it all the time. Responding to the political pressure, sponsors pull out, and stations pull Limbaugh off the air. Right-wing pundits with similar views are also pulled, and the airwaves are left with a diet of middle-to-left public discourse because everything to the right of center has been deemed unacceptable. In time, the center shifts further and further to the left, until the only comments anyone is allowed to make publicly are far left. Would conservatives say we were on the brink of (or in) a left-wing tyranny? They'd be right.

Yesterday the US Senate passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for its print ad, which argued that Gen. Petraeus betrayed the American people by allowing himself to become Bush's political puppet to prop up the war. Agree or disagree with them, there is plenty of reason to think Bush set this up, knew what Petraeus was going to say long before he said it (since Bush had control over it) and plenty of reason to question Petraeus' integrity. True or false, the opinion is MoveOn's to express as they see fit.

When the US Senate makes official pronouncements about what content is appropriate to utter in public, the USA is on the road to a dictatorship. We have time to stop it, but that is the direction the Senate took us yesterday, and the Bush administration has been taking us ever since 9/11. So-called "conservatives" who applaud what the Senate just did should think long and hard about how they are going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot, and being shoved . . .

I urge people to contact everyone you can think of to bring this to people's attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Controlling the airwaves??? Do you mean like the Fairness Doctrine? You know the one where they want equal time for Liberal talk shows. Problem is the ratings are for conservative talk show hosts, and in radio, ratings rule, PERIOD. If the left came up with an interesting alternative, there would be Liberal Talk Radio, and not just Air America, which is kind of like chewing thumbtacks. I do love a free enterprise system.

[Guest Paul]

Controlling the airwaves???  Do you mean like the Fairness Doctrine?  You know the one where they want equal time for Liberal talk shows.  Problem is the ratings are for conservative talk show hosts, and in radio, ratings rule, PERIOD.  If the left came up with an interesting alternative, there would be Liberal Talk Radio, and not just Air America, which is kind of like chewing thumbtacks.  I do love a free enterprise system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the Fairness Doctrine applied to that, the right wouldn't be able to have more programs, so you don't know what you're talking about.

People on the right seem to need others to reinforce what they already think they believe. You guys are dead sure you're right, yet because deep down you know you're full of it, you seem to need people telling you that you were right all along. Liberals don't think that way. So have your jollies with your talk shows. It'll all catch up to you.

[Guest 2smart4u]

"If we stifle opinions" ??  MoveOn accuses the top general in Iraq of treason,

    which is exactly what betraying implies, and a Kool-aider calls it an "opinion"??

    Only a LoonyLeft, Kool-aid drinking Defeatocrat  could or would do that.

    "Guest", you're a disgrace, you don't deserve to live in America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I say we send him to Iran for a year, it might clear his head.

[Guest Radagast]

Controlling the airwaves???  Do you mean like the Fairness Doctrine?  You know the one where they want equal time for Liberal talk shows.  Problem is the ratings are for conservative talk show hosts, and in radio, ratings rule, PERIOD.  If the left came up with an interesting alternative, there would be Liberal Talk Radio, and not just Air America, which is kind of like chewing thumbtacks.  I do love a free enterprise system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Commercial airwaves are what they are. In spite of the right wing flooding radio and tee vee with smug, know it all hatred, the Dems still took control of Congress in 2006 and will very likely take the White House and a more sizable chunk of Congress in 2008. Of course, what that will translate into in terms of change remains to be seen.

O'Reily, Limbaugh and the like, IMHO, are 'political entertainment'. Some people listen to bolster their beliefs, some listen to yell at the radio because they like to disagree. They are the same as those goofy tabloids we say we never read but can't take our eyes off of on the supermarket check out line.

They are first and foremost a side show. Why folks get upset over them, I will never know.

[Bryan]

The ad said he betrayed us by selling out to Bush's political agenda to promote the war.

More blow from the blowhard.

The MoveOn ad appeared before Petraeus had appeared before Congress, and predicted that he would lie. Have a look if it's hard for you to remember.

https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

There is good reason to believe that; you can't stop people from thinking it, and therefore you can't stop them from saying it.

The Senate resolution doesn't keep them from saying it. All it does is recognize that what they said was bogus--and there really is good reason for saying that. Apparently Paul wants to muzzle the Senate from passing resolutions that make assertions amounting to free speech.

The ad repeats false claims debunked here

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/li...ks_context.html

as well as making a number of new false claims (such as "Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed"). Independent reporters such as Michael Yon and Michael J. Totten both reported impressive results from the surge.

Doesn't matter that you don't agree with it; the whole point of politics is that people disagree.

Except when Paul disagrees with the Senate expressing its sense of the ad. Then it's not okay any longer.

Funny how you right wingers have no problem with outright slander against Max Cleland, John McCain and John Kerry, but when your ox is being gored for far better reasons, suddenly this sort of thing is off base.

More baloney from LaClair. The ads attacking Cleland were widely condemned from the right.

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said of one ad, "t's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible;" Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the ads were "beyond offensive to me."

And that ad was far, far tamer than the MoveOn ad.

We could argue which set of charges is better supported, but that's the essence of politics, isn't it.

Yeah, except Petraeus isn't running for election. He's part of the armed services and has earned respect--a fact noted by a supermajority in the Senate, including roughly half the Democrats.

In McCain's case, they just made stuff up, and about Kerry and Cleland too.

What have you got in mind regarding McCain other than the push-poll? And what was made up regarding either Kerry or Cleland?

And what part of it approaches anything like the MoveOn ad, where betrayal (lying) is predicted rather than shown with evidence?

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_vetera...e_betrayed.html

Every one of them was an honored war veteran whose integrity was attacked. How it be OK then, but not now?

1) Political figures involved

2) arguments built on plausible evidence

And I'd have supported the Senate's free-speech right to condemn any of the ads by expressing their sense of the content.

You can't have it both ways. Bush made Petraeus a pawn in the political battle over the war.

How?

Once he did that, he put Petraeus' integrity on the line, and you can't stop people from wondering why Petraeus allowed it to happen. So you may not like it, but if a case ever went to court over this, political opinion is exactly what this is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One wonders what case Paul can imagine would end up in court from this incident.

I can imagine two. One, an inquiry into whether or not the NYT was in the habit of giving discounted ad rates to liberal groups (possibly resulting in campaign finance charges against the NYT, with an associated trial). Two, an attempt by someone like LaClair to attempt prior restraint on the ability of the Senate to express its sense of an issue via resolution.

[Guest Paul]

Paul has many personas; Tom, Guest, Guest, Guest and Guest. What's funny

  is they always all agree with one another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's even funnier is that you think these four guests are all me.