48 comments

  1. Rusty says:

    I just watched the ad again for the first time in years, and it seems really tame in comparison to what I remember. Maybe I’m just more jaded now. No, it doesn’t compare Cleland to bin Laden.

    But, it does take a lot of nerve for someone like Chambliss who never served (bum leg, no really, it’s a bum leg… c’mon, don’t you believe me?) to call out someone like Cleland who gave up several limbs for his country on courage. Chambliss is a quintessential chickenhawk.

  2. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Although I despise Saxby and I don’t really care much for Cleland either, I wasn’t really offended by the ad. But if I were Cleland at the time, I would have released my own ad along the lines of: “I was out in Vietnam shoveling shi*t and humping 20 klicks a day while Saxby was home listening to coutry music and smoking pot with his frat boys. And he has the balls to call me soft on national defense?”

    Propaganda, rhetoric, and Republican talking points aside, most of us know that the Dems aren’t soft on defense, but until the Dems show some balls in public, they’ll always let Republicans define them as soft.

  3. ugadog says:

    Did not equate Osama with Cleland??? It just morphed their faces together. I think that’s a very visual comparison.

  4. souldrift says:

    Chambliss is a Chickenhawk, and this ad contains the quintessential words of a coward. And Repugs expect us to get all bent out of shape because of what MoveOn said? As if they haven’t done the same to decorated veterans when it’s convenient for them?

  5. SpaceyG says:

    I love it when Repugs try to justify their atrocities. Really, there’s no better measure on the Way Out of Touch meter you can find. What’s up for your next post, Erick? Katrina response spin? Something I’m sure you’re also quite proud of, just like this outrageous glorification of the Cleland ad. Careful, your pride is really showing today.

  6. Erick says:

    See now, I got you people on here early and fighting without *ever* having to mention Ron Paul.

    I figured it was either this or take on the AJC’s death penalty reporting.

  7. Rpolitic says:

    Hey how do I post the mailers the dems did to show the low level they will reach? And this is not some group from out of state it was our dear friends at the democratic party of georgia

  8. souldrift says:

    Buzz, whether they’re on active duty is a technicality. But it’s a way for Pugs to do one thing and feign outrage over others doing it.

    You may believe your side is “morally justified” in making the distinction, but I don’t.

  9. souldrift says:

    Buzz, as a follow-up: Pugs lick the boots of the active or retired military, as long as they continue to carry the party line. That distinction only comes out when they want to blast someone, which occurs the minute their opinion changes.

    In case you’re wondering why people tire of Republican flag-waving and self-righteousness, this is it. Well, this and the pervs.

  10. dingleberry says:

    Harry,

    I have a question.

    What in the hell have you EVER contributed to this site that makes you so worthy of being here over anyone else?
    Half of everything you say is BS.

  11. ChuckEaton says:

    I think the real question is if a former military member, especially one wounded from combat, chooses to become a policymaker, is he exonerated of criticism of his military policies by people who didn’t serve in the military.

    If the answer is yes, then should all military / international security decisions be limited only to those who have served in combat – somehow I don’t think the liberals would be happy with that policy.

    Short of death, there are few, if any, Americans who have given more to this country while serving the military than Max Cleland. That being said, it’s a little unfair to expect Cleland should be shielded from any criticism of his military votes. In short – he chose to run with the big dogs.

  12. drjay says:

    think what you want about the ad–the fact of the matter is cleland was the most liberal senator in ga history–even more so than fowler-based on ada liftime ratings and the ad highlighted one of those votes, which along w/ votes like his partial birth abortion vote placed him to the left of the avg georgian and he lost his seat as a result.

  13. JRM2016 says:

    Jmac:

    Cleland was instructed by his party leadership to toe the union line on votes related to the Dept. of Homeland Security. He did that and held up progress on that front, along with many of his Dem colleagues.

    Making the record clear on that point is not being “shamely partisan”. The shame is that Cleland did not have the courage to stand up to union bosses that run his party.

    Also, this idea that a caller to the Rush Limbuagh program is equivalent to MoveOn.org taking out a full page ad in the NYT is ludicrous.

  14. Harry says:

    When Chambliss roundly defeats Vernon “MeSoHorny” Jones next year (which we all agree is a sure bet), then maybe some sensitive souls should consider a move out of state. After all, we should have a quota for minorities as well as veterans.

  15. Jmac says:

    Also, this idea that a caller to the Rush Limbuagh program is equivalent to MoveOn.org taking out a full page ad in the NYT is ludicrous.

    It would be … if that’s only what happened. Rush endorsed the idea, it got picked up by conservative bloggers and talk shows and repeated and repeated.

    And, again, that’s stated along with my disgust over the MoveOn ad. My contention is that ludicrous speech is ludicrous speech, and the attack on Gen. Petreaus crossed the line, and the ad against Cleland did as well.

    A logical criticism of Cleland’s policies and positions would have been entirely appropriate, but the ad sought to blur the lines and left the voters with the impression that he was cowardly, weak and disloyal.

    But again, a criticism of the actual issues would have tossed aside quick sound bites and images of Osama bin Laden. It also would have delved more into the specific reasons why Cleland voted the way he did … and not suggested that he was against protecting the homeland.

    Regarding the issue of unions, to this day I still don’t know why some folks hold so much venom against the ability of workers to collectively bargain for fair wages and safe working conditions, but no matter.

  16. GodHatesTrash says:

    I do not think that Move.on meant to imply that General Petraeus was a traitor. If they had called him General Noseupbushesbuttemus perhaps there would have been less controversy.

    And it would be a much more accurate portrayal of the General.

  17. dingleberry says:

    GHT,

    Have fun burning in HELL with Pederalist and the other athiests. You’re going to have to share a studio apartment with all of them while you drink coffee and have pineapples placed into your anus. HELL sucks.

  18. GodHatesTrash says:

    Did you all know that General Petraeus, despite entering the Army in 1974 (while Nam was still going) never saw combat before this current clusterf*ck? His first combat experience was as a General, just like Dumbya’s was as Chickenhawk-in-Chief.

    He did get shot by one of his own troops in Kentucky, however.

    Do you get a Purple Heart when you’re shot in peacetime?

    Max Cleland has a Purple Heart due to the loss of three limbs in a grenade explosion. Four days prior to this loss, Captain Cleland earned a Silver Star in action around Khe Sanh. The citation reads, in part… “Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968

  19. John Konop says:

    I think all sides are wrong. We should respect the service of people in the military.

    That does not mean we cannot question policy. But the ads from both sides are flat out wrong!

  20. GodHatesTrash says:

    I think even the redneck Georgia GOP guttertrash can agree with decent people like myself that Delay is a dingleberry.

  21. souldrift says:

    I still wonder why it is that Republicans think (or act as if) Generals that are active duty are beyond reproach, and even beyond question? Do they become angels incapable of misrepresenting the truth when they’re on duty? If so, do they lose angelhood status when they leave duty?

    Sorry guys, the Freedom I believe in isn’t one in which we’re not free to question policy. “with us or against us” doesn’t leave room for debate about how to fight the fight, so of course that’s what Republicans prefer. But It’s NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

  22. dingleberry says:

    I think even the redneck Georgia GOP guttertrash can agree with decent people like myself that Delay is a dingleberry.

    Dude,

    I know I said that you would be burning in HELL one of these days…but I never said anything bad enough to be compared to Tom Delay.

    You hurt my feelings. Truly.

  23. Federalist says:

    I just watched that cardwell ad…what a loser! What do you see in him victoratgaimproper? His voice is extremely insincere and if he had a chance or was even a legitimate democratic candidate, that ad would be on tv (paid media) rather than youtube (free “media”). He is such a sorry excuse of a candidate and thank hamilton the people that help get candidates elected can see that. Hence his inability to raise enough money to advertise. He has been at it for almost 4 months and still has less than $100K raised. For those that do not know how pathetic this is, most college students, with professional help, can raise $100k in 2 months or less. Just like Ray Mckinney, Dale cardwell is having a mid life crisis that he needs other people to finance.

  24. Federalist,

    i guess you missed the part about holding politicians accountable. Dale must believe that good government means more than raising special interest money.

    Check out all that has happened under Saxby’s Watch on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sounds like he was doing more political fundraising than military funds watching…

    Links at Lucid Idiocy:
    Excerpts from NY Times Article:

    “As of Sept. 12, the Army reported that it had 78 cases of fraud and corruption under investigation, had obtained 20 criminal indictments, and had uncovered over $15 million in bribes.”

    $6,000,000,000
    “Military officials said Thursday that contracts worth $6 billion to provide essential supplies to American troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan

  25. GodHatesTrash says:

    You’re right dingleberry. I apologize.

    Delay is, at his best, a dingleberry dangling from the butt of another dingleberry.

Comments are closed.