MoveOn's Media Misstep

By: Matthew Felling
Topics: In The News

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

You remember those Bugs Bunny cartoons where he'd stick a cork or something in Elmer Fudd's rifle and it would backfire into Fudd's face? We've seen the political version of that in Washington, DC this week.

In the three days since they originally took out a full-page ad in the New York Times deriding General David "Betray Us?" Petraeus, MoveOn.org is still the big media story of the week, nearly eclipsing the General's testimony. (Simply while writing this post, it's been covered on two of the three cable nets.)

It's a textbook case of media blowback, with the ad having given supporters of the "surge" a certain amount of rhetorical cover, or at least an opportunity to shift the focus of the discussion from the streets of Baghdad to the well-known activist group and bugaboo of the right.

Joe Klein at Time magazine wrote an article called "MoveOn.Infantile."

Chris Cilizza, Washington Post political wonk extraordinaire published a piece entitled "MoveOn.org: Momentum or Menace?"

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) took time out of her questioning on Monday to lambaste the ad.

The Kansas City Star even felt compelled to publish an editorial demanding an apology from MoveOn, "General Petraeus Deserves an Apology."

And as if that wasn't enough, the ultimate proof that MoveOn had overshot their target? Stephen Colbert mocked them on "The Colbert Report" last night.

Regardless of your politics or position on America's military involvement in Iraq, it's clear that the MoveOn.org ad – whether on its own or through Republican counterarguments – was a tactical failure for the Democrats and left, with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) denouncing the ad in a nationally-televised interview.

In a week where Americans could have been focusing in on troop levels, progress and benchmarks, MoveOn.org gave the General's supporters a ready-made talking point. Rather than discuss how 53 percent of Americans expected Petraeus to give an overly rosy depiction of the surge, Petraeus and his supporters were able to get out of their defensive crouch and move the debate in their favor.

30 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 30 Comments


by houser123 September 14, 2007 5:46 PM EDT: Yep. MoveOn over shot that target by a wide margin. Who is the knucklehead that came up with that less than brilliant idea. Don''t misinterpret this comment as defending this war, for it is not. I was apposed from the beginning and remain that way today. What MoveOn did show is that the gutter can be occupied by both the the Swift Boaters and the MoveOn''ers. This just goes to prove you dont have to be real smart to spend a lot of money on advertisement.; Reply to this comment


by david1737 September 14, 2007 5:16 PM EDT: Regardless of your opinion about the move on article, the Bush Admin. continues to lie and our troops continue to die.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller September 14, 2007 4:15 PM EDT: "So, question is - did you further the cause for the left, or the right? You aren''''t terribly bright are you ?" -- speakinup

In a sane world, it probably wouldn''t hurt the cause near as much as Anne Coulter mokcing a triple amputee, saying, "no wonder you lost the war", then claiming he was drunk, which wasn''t true, and hadn''t earned his medals. It might set back the cause as much as Boehner saying American soldiers are a "small price to pay" for the success in Iraq, or the Bush campaign using McCain''s torture and internment to spread rumors he was a "Manchurian Candidate". Or, Coulter praising Timothy McVeigh for blowing up the Federal building, or Congressmen calling for the assassination of judges, or writing editorials, hopefully pining for another 9/11 to rally the Republican party. Or possibly Limbaugh''s on air fantasy of every opponent of Mr. Bush''s war getting their heads chopped off on insurgent videotape -- we''d love Bush''s war then! Or claiming Abu Ghraib is a result of women in the military. Or using the suicide to suggest murder.

However, the world is not sane, and you will back the party of this partisan venom for its politeness and bipartisanship because being polite, just as being patriotic, means obeying the Boy King and demonizing the heathens.; Reply to this comment


by speakinup September 14, 2007 2:50 PM EDT: "General Pet is the result of a Bushit selection process similar to Joe Stalin''''s purges. Regardless of his career, his credibility is gone forever now that he serves as a Mouthpiece for the lying Bushit Neofascists. He dug that grave himself. Run it again, MoveOn! Posted by gkc99

You know what gkc99. I''m going to do you a favor.

Your hatrid has blinded you to the results of your actions by posting the above. So, what do you think your party''s officals would think of the above post?

With CBS''s new format, do you think it will get more viewing by the public exploring the site ?

So, question is - did you further the cause for the left, or the right? You aren''t terribly bright are you ?; Reply to this comment


by speakinup September 14, 2007 2:44 PM EDT: My compliments to Nancy Pelosi. I personally don''t like her politics in general, but I see she has at least a shred of integrity in denouncing moveon.org''s comments about General Petraeus.

Thank-you Ms. Pelosi.

Next, Moveon needs to apologize, in a full page add.; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 September 14, 2007 1:49 PM EDT: kmwhittless, how astute you are to realize that I''m a Democrat.

I have stated the reasons for why I think Bush and the Republicans have created this situation in Iraq and continue their policy was to take (barrowed) $money from our Federal Treasury and divert it to the private sector at $12 Billion Dollars per week. That''s a *** load of cash unconceivable to most except to the Republican War Machine.

George Bush''s Profit Sharing Agreement was stifled yesterday by the Iraqi Parliament. The bill drafted by the US State Department (Richard Cheney) was to have the Iraqi Parliament approve the privatization of the Oil Production for all of Iraq. The PSA would''ve turned over 70% of oil profits to 4-5 Multinational Corporations for the next 30 years. In essence the Iraqi Government would have been working for the Oil Companies.

Instead the Kurdish Province from the North of Iraq abstained from turning their oil over to the Oil Companies and opted to enact contracts to have private companies work on their behalf to produce oil and gas.

Bush hasn''t given up on obtaining the oil from Iraq, our troops will never come home, and the cost will continue to register. The US Congress will not be able to change the policy in Iraq because of obstruction from the Republican Party and the Veto Powers of the President.

The only thing I can suggest is for Americans to preemptively impeach the next Republican President.; Reply to this comment


by gkc99 September 14, 2007 11:41 AM EDT: General Pet is the result of a Bushit selection process similar to Joe Stalin''s purges. Regardless of his career, his credibility is gone forever now that he serves as a Mouthpiece for the lying Bushit Neofascists.

He dug that grave himself.

Run it again, MoveOn!; Reply to this comment


by ioweign September 14, 2007 11:25 AM EDT: I am reminded of Felling''''s argument for why Democrats shouldn''''t fear a debate on FOX News. If Petraeus can''''t handle MoveOn, how can he handle the insurgency?

Posted by memekiller at 01:02 PM : Sep 13, 2007

Exactly - this guy thinks he is the next Eisenhower. - Didn''t he have the job of training the Iraqi Army and Security forces ? Where are they ? - Wasn''t there a GAO Report about 190,000 missing weapons under his watch ? Where are they ?; Reply to this comment


by ioweign September 14, 2007 10:33 AM EDT: Double standards

Where were you in 2002 ?

Cleland served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War, attaining the rank of Captain. He was awarded the Silver Star and the Bronze Star for valorous action in combat, including during the Battle of Khe Sanh on April 4th, 1968.

Running for Max Cleland''s Georgia Senate seat in 2002, the Republican Chambliss questioned his opponent''s patriotism. You may recall he even ran TV ads with photos of Cleland alongside those of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ads were roundly maligned at the time as a new low in political dirty tricks. But, of course, they had the desired effect...... Chambliss won.; Reply to this comment


by skeezix06 September 13, 2007 10:40 PM EDT: All this still doesn''t change the fact that you''re whipping up a froth over very little while ignoring bigger, meatier, more newsworthy but less "comfortable" stories. Yet another giant step downwards for the former Walter Cronkite network...; Reply to this comment