View Full Version : Moveon.org and General "Betray us"
Vertnut
09-15-2007, 06:21 AM
After demanding a change in the command of the armed forces in Iraq, our senate confirms General Petraeus WITHOUT A DISSENTING VOTE! He goes before the senate to report on progress made in Iraq, and is called a liar by none other than Hillary. Her "suspend a willingness to believe" remark, may well cost her a shot at the whitehouse.
To top it off, Moveon.org runs an ad in the New york Times, calling this man General "Betray us", which NONE of the democratic candidates condemn them for.
I think this could be a defining moment in the '08 election. With the democratic-led congress holding a 27% approval rating, the American people may make a statement.
Petraeus is a Bronze Star recipient, among other decorations...
I don't think it changes anything, everybody has pretty much made up their mind on the war. The only thing that will change minds at this point will be if everything in Iraq starts going really good or really bad. Based on the past 5 years it will probably be more of the same.
Stevo
09-15-2007, 03:04 PM
I don't think it changes anything, everybody has pretty much made up their mind on the war. The only thing that will change minds at this point will be if everything in Iraq starts going really good or really bad. Based on the past 5 years it will probably be more of the same.
Hmm, I was sure the war in Iraq was started in March 2003 and it wasn't going badly the first year or two, or at least in the eyes of the public and media. Where do you get the 5 years for your basis?
Stevo
Vertnut
09-15-2007, 03:05 PM
Hmm, I was sure the war in Iraq was started in March 2003 and it wasn't going badly the first year or two, or at least in the eyes of the public and media. Where do you get the 5 years for your basis?
Stevo
That's kinda what I was thinking... :confused:
Hmm, I was sure the war in Iraq was started in March 2003 and it wasn't going badly the first year or two, or at least in the eyes of the public and media. Where do you get the 5 years for your basis?
Stevo
Well he mentioned that the Petraeus ad would be a defining moment in the 08 election, but just about everybody had made up their mind about the Iraq war before it even started when the administration began talking about it in late 2002. If your for the war theres very little the other side could say or do to sway your opinion away from that and if your against the war theres very little the other side could do to change your position. Thats why I say its more of the same because almost everybody has had the same opinion for 5 years now. There are some swing voters who were against the war but now support it and vice-versa but they only represent about 10-15% of voters.
Vertnut
09-15-2007, 08:47 PM
Well he mentioned that the Petraeus ad would be a defining moment in the 08 election, but just about everybody had made up their mind about the Iraq war before it even started when the administration began talking about it in late 2002. If your for the war theres very little the other side could say or do to sway your opinion away from that and if your against the war theres very little the other side could do to change your position. Thats why I say its more of the same because almost everybody has had the same opinion for 5 years now. There are some swing voters who were against the war but now support it and vice-versa but they only represent about 10-15% of voters.
A lot of folks are not "for the war", but will not like the treatment given to a decorated veteran by a highly prejudiced congress.
mikeb
09-15-2007, 09:07 PM
A lot of folks are not "for the war", but will not like the treatment given to a decorated veteran by a highly prejudiced congress.
Agreed. Such a statement coming from "her thighness" right after 9/11 is just pure vitriol and is disgusting and cowardly.
A lot of folks are not "for the war", but will not like the treatment given to a decorated veteran by a highly prejudiced congress.
Thats true but the amount of people who will hold Clinton or Obama accountable for not denouncing an ad isn't enough for it to be a turning point in the election. It was a stupid and childish move by moveon.org but its not like the democratic congress passed legislation for this ad or got together at the Al Gore's mansion and plotted it.
32VfromHell
09-15-2007, 10:54 PM
I think Patraeus is a highly educated man. The guy is very bright, and he has an extremely difficult job.
It was his plan to get the Sunni's working with US troops instead of fighting them. This is a guy who studied tons on the United States failure of Vietnamization, so i would like to say he is capable of success. Capable, mind you, not "ensured".
Vertnut
09-15-2007, 11:01 PM
Thats true but the amount of people who will hold Clinton or Obama accountable for not denouncing an ad isn't enough for it to be a turning point in the election. It was a stupid and childish move by moveon.org but its not like the democratic congress passed legislation for this ad or got together at the Al Gore's mansion and plotted it.
There's a theory that in every modern election, 60% of the voters will always vote their party regardless of what is happening in the world (a 30% split-far right and far left). It's the central 40% that make the difference in an election, and that's the folks that this will have an effect on.
There's a theory that in every modern election, 60% of the voters will always vote their party regardless of what is happening in the world (a 30% split-far right and far left). It's the central 40% that make the difference in an election, and that's the folks that this will have an effect on.
Yea independents are the largest registered voting block but even then I don't think many of them will remember this in the general election, much less hold the entire democratic party and its candidate accountable for it.
Paladin
09-16-2007, 06:37 AM
Yea independents are the largest registered voting block but even then I don't think many of them will remember this in the general election, much less hold the entire democratic party and its candidate accountable for it.
That is why the Republican candidate will harp on this and similar topics during the debates to remind everyone. If you don't denounce this cowardly stuff, you own it and support it IMO.
Vertnut
09-16-2007, 06:48 AM
That is why the Republican candidate will harp on this and similar topics during the debates to remind everyone. If you don't denounce this cowardly stuff, you own it and support it IMO.
Exactly...Guilliani (sp) has already started with his ad in the NY Times. I really think Hillary may have given the Reps a rallying cry.
That is why the Republican candidate will harp on this and similar topics during the debates to remind everyone. If you don't denounce this cowardly stuff, you own it and support it IMO.
See but it goes back to what I first said, Iraq will trump everything else in the 08 election and just about everybody has made up their mind if they are for it or against it. So that being the case people will either decide to vote for (D) if they are against the war or (R) if they are for it and that includes the people who are registered as independent. Theres very little that could be said or done by either party that would change people's opinion about it.
There are some democrats,republicans, and independents that don't care about the war and won't consider it when voting but they are a very small percentage of voters. The moveon.org ad might sway their vote for a candidate or against them but there won't be enough of them for it to be a turning point in the election.
Holding the democrats responsible for that ad is like holding Clinton responsible that one of her fund raisers was a wanted criminal. Or holding Romney responsible because his Idaho campaign chairman was arrested for eradicating lude behavior in an airport bathroom. Sure people on the far right or on the far left will use those things as ammunition to attack the opposing party but its not the type of thing that changes elections especially when the candidates had 0 involvement in it. So far the only people who are holding Clinton or Romney accountable for these incidents are people who wouldn't vote for them anyways. And then those who support them don't see either incident as an issue that would make them change their mind about who they're supporting.
Now as for Clinton, she doesn't need to do anything to rally the republicans, they already despise her and if she gets the nomination republicans will be sure they make it to the polls. Even if she did denounce it republicans would still attack her on abortion, economics, welfare, education, energy policy, foreign policy, gun control, taxes, spending, health care, immigration, government spending, social security, cooperate and personal welfare, entitlement spending, and everything else thats wrong with the democrats.
65Shelby
09-16-2007, 03:32 PM
After demanding a change in the command of the armed forces in Iraq, our senate confirms General Petraeus WITHOUT A DISSENTING VOTE! He goes before the senate to report on progress made in Iraq, and is called a liar by none other than Hillary. Her "suspend a willingness to believe" remark, may well cost her a shot at the whitehouse.To top it off, Moveon.org runs an ad in the New york Times, calling this man General "Betray us", which NONE of the democratic candidates condemn them for.
I think this could be a defining moment in the '08 election. With the democratic-led congress holding a 27% approval rating, the American people may make a statement.
Petraeus is a Bronze Star recipient, among other decorations...
She lost her shot at the White House when she was born a split-tail. Furthermore, her carpet-munching days in the governors mansion will be exposed by the Republicans soon enough, making their way to the public when it's convienient.
Vertnut
09-16-2007, 04:49 PM
She lost her shot at the White House when she was born a split-tail. Furthermore, her carpet-munching days in the governors mansion will be exposed by the Republicans soon enough, making their way to the public when it's convienient.
I hope for once, that they bust her ass on: 1) The Rose law firm shenanigans of the '70's-'80's 2) The Vince Foster connection 3) Her failed health-care proposals of her husbands presidential era, and 4) Being a lying, coniving bitch.
I'd take just one out of the four... ;)
Paladin
09-17-2007, 06:41 AM
See but it goes back to what I first said, Iraq will trump everything else in the 08 election and just about everybody has made up their mind if they are for it or against it. So that being the case people will either decide to vote for (D) if they are against the war or (R) if they are for it and that includes the people who are registered as independent. Theres very little that could be said or done by either party that would change people's opinion about it.
There are some democrats,republicans, and independents that don't care about the war and won't consider it when voting but they are a very small percentage of voters. The moveon.org ad might sway their vote for a candidate or against them but there won't be enough of them for it to be a turning point in the election.
Holding the democrats responsible for that ad is like holding Clinton responsible that one of her fund raisers was a wanted criminal. Or holding Romney responsible because his Idaho campaign chairman was arrested for eradicating lude behavior in an airport bathroom. Sure people on the far right or on the far left will use those things as ammunition to attack the opposing party but its not the type of thing that changes elections especially when the candidates had 0 involvement in it. So far the only people who are holding Clinton or Romney accountable for these incidents are people who wouldn't vote for them anyways. And then those who support them don't see either incident as an issue that would make them change their mind about who they're supporting.
Now as for Clinton, she doesn't need to do anything to rally the republicans, they already despise her and if she gets the nomination republicans will be sure they make it to the polls. Even if she did denounce it republicans would still attack her on abortion, economics, welfare, education, energy policy, foreign policy, gun control, taxes, spending, health care, immigration, government spending, social security, cooperate and personal welfare, entitlement spending, and everything else thats wrong with the democrats.
I think you way underestimate how gullible people are. The 30-35% of the left and the 30-35% of the right will not be swayed, but the 30-40% of the sheeple will be IMO.
I think Iraq will be going quite well by the time the election rolls around and these issues will be at the forefront at election time.
Hillary has alot of skeletons in her closet like you have pointed out. I actually think this will be a pretty interesting election.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.