Hume, last Friday:
Liberal columnist Michael Kinsley says Republican indignation over the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus “General Betray Us” is — in his words — “mock outrage.”Kinsley writes in Time Magazine that the ad can be interpreted as questioning the general’s honesty — not his patriotism. But kinsley says that the negative reaction to the ad has been phony and writes, “The war’s backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue.”
He adds, “When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn’t spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.”
Look, Michael, just because liberals have a history of this nonsense for the last 35 years or so, doesn’t mean everyone does it. People are genuinely angry over this one. But do keep on thinking that the whole thing is choreographed…. I think you’re in for a rude awakening come November of 2008. Your shock will be the gravy on that Republican victory.
Addendum: (David L) The leftards don’t believe the anger is for real, or do they? Mrs. Clinton apparently puts enough stock in the anger idea that according to Sweetness & Light, went on Meet the Press and lied about her vote:
SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely not. He [General David Petraeus] is a man of great honor and distinction who has served admirably. I don’t condone anything like that, and I have voted against those who would impugn the patriotism and the service of the people who wear the uniform of our country. I don’t believe that that should be said about General Petraeus, and I condemn that
As the Clintons take no position without first conducting a poll, it is a safe bet that Mrs. Clinton has her own polling data indicating public anger at the MoveOn.org ad.
Tags: War on American culture
September 24th, 2007 at 9:15
Which, apparently, she didn’t ahve until after the vote was taken, then?
The real issue here is Mrs Clinton is playing a balance act… she’s made her career, and that of her husband, by pitting one group against the other.
Such is what laughingly passes for “Triangulation” in the Clinton’s parlance.
Most certainly, she has to play this very gently, even assuming nobody notices that she’s trying to have things both ways, and mentions it. In this case, she condems the ad, but refuses to vote for condemming it as an act of congress?
September 24th, 2007 at 9:53
Mrs. Clinton has to try have it both ways. She was to portray hereslf as both the Smartest Woman in the World and thw women that was too dumb to realizes that she was married to a serial cad. My position is that Mrs. Clinton can either be smart or honest. She can not be both. Then she doesn’t have to either.