Good, Bad, and Just TOO Ugly for Words

I generally don’t have any use for Flaming Liberal Bill Maher or his brand of “humor.” But as the saying goes… “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

You know the Troofers are a just mite upset over this. (h/t: Ron Chusid @ Liberal Values)

Speaking of Flaming Libs… Jane Hamsher, who mourns the passing of minstrel shows every so often, fires a shot across Elizabeth Edwards’ bow:

Dear Mrs. Edwards,

You’re a smart woman. You of all people should know about the asymmetrical intimidation problem that Paul Krugman talks about — the one where the media is afraid to go after Rudy Guiliani for claiming he’s a rescue worker, but they’ll try to demolish your husband over a haircut because they know that they’ll get swarmed by the right wing noise machine for the former and pay no price for the latter. That’s how it works.

So I was really disappointed today to read at Taylor Marsh’s place that you had joined with Diaper Dave Vitter and John “McCarthy” McCain to attack MoveOn. We (and by that I mean the netroots) defend you when the MSM try to make your campaign a pinata over stupid, insignificant stuff. When they try to say your race should end because of your illness, but don’t say squat about Fred Thompson’s lymphoma. We’re your first line of defense, the only messaging machine that progressives have.

So here’s the rule. You never repeat right wing talking points to attack your own, ever. You never enter that echo chamber as a participant. Ever. You never give them a hammer to beat the left with. Just. Don’t. Do. It.

[…]

We love you. We want to love you.

Knock it off.

What incredible frickin’ chutzpah! As another blogger noted, this is what happens when the nutroots are feeling their oats. And it’s also the major reason none of the leading Democrat candidates, including Breck-Boy himself, have yet to disown the MoveOn.org ad. Put simply: Obama, Her Hillaryness, and the other Dems are afraid to alienate MoveOn and their fellow-travelers.

While Sweet Jane’s screed is both amazing and amusing, the red meat is in the comments to her post. A real “Gathering of Pigeons” it is, with no lack of dirty obnoxious little birds to shite all over everything…and most especially General Petraeus… in their rush to support both MoveOn and Sweet Jane’s defense of same. Yet there was one brave soul who dared contradict Ms. Hamsher in her own lair, and gets his a$$ handed to him by none other than Sweet Jane HerOwnSelf (schwifty's words in italics, Hamsher's not):

schwifty says (ed: comment #90):

September 15th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Jane Hamsher @ 46 (ed: responding to comment #14)
So Jane, basically the gist of your post is that the merits and principles behind what “we” say are subordinate to the tactic turning up the dial on our own echo chamber? A bit of realpolitik for the campaign trail, then.. but as a tree hugging far left liberal myself, I was astonished at moveon for stooping to Ann Coulter’s level. Accusing a military officer of betrayal is tantamount to accusing him of treason, and regardless of whether he is a willing hostage of Bush’s tactic to hide behind his medals, you don’t shoot the hostage. Whatever happened to defeating the enemy without becoming like them?

Petraeus is willing to advance himself politically by enabling the deaths of a lot of people. He is not noble, he is being political, and they are not stooping to Ann Coulter’s level to point that out — unless you are you equating her with the fellow men and women in uniform who gave Petraeus the name in the first place.

Bush sent him up there because he knew the media would be okay with going after a hack like Rumsfeld, but they’d be afraid to attack a military man. A cluster of ribbons on your chest does not make you immune to criticism if you’re acting Rumsfeld’s part now.

Once again: what made it necessary to invoke Ann Coulter’s language of Treason in the first place? So Petraeus is the latest in a long line of hacks.

Did that just become a hanging offense?

If not, then the ad slogan was poorly chosen. Moveon also does not refer to Iraqi civilian casualties as “dead hajis” either; pointing to the etymological origins of what began as a play on words over in the sand is a weak strawman, at best.

I respect the pragmatic idea that as a rule, Democrats should not bite the hands that feed them, but I fully agree with EE’s view (it helps to go back and read exactly what she said) and do not believe that she said any of this for any other reason than that she actually believes it.

And it goes on, and on, and on for 260 comments…the last time I looked. But the real winner in the “we support the troops! Sorta. Well, not at all.” Category is this insane little blurb:

The first to call the Surgin General “General Betrayus” were soldiers in the field. I remember reading it first at a link provided by Juan Cole’s site back at the end of winter or beginning of spring. It was inevitable, and is the kind of thing enlisted men and NCOs often create when frustrated.

I’d look for the link, but what with NCOs who write to the NYT dying and USAF crewmen involved in the Minot-Barksdale hijack derailment being hit, I’d rather not expose anybody new to these gangsters.

I hate to have to agree with Jane about somebody I’ve come to respect as much as Elizabeth Edwards on this, but you’re right, Jane.

Please remember, folks - MoveOn.Org was merely expressing a term in common usage over in Iraq by our highly abused service men and women.

Or maybe this one:

If that means we must use hardball tactics in attacking an unscrupulous, ambition-driven general who is acting like a politician and lying, then we must not be dissuaded from doing so just because he happened to put on his fucking uniform before showing up in front of the cameras on 9/11. If he can’t handle being called a betrayer when he is in fact acting like one, he can always stop acting like one. In any case, the uniform should offer no protection, it’s just a piece of cloth. And more and more troops apparently are starting to see it that way as well. You can only beat a dog so many times before he loses faith in you.

But here again you are clearly and explicitly focusing on the votes of the troops, rather than the citizenry. Let me tell you something, friend, and let me tell it clear. If the time ever comes when we are forced to follow the lead laid out in the Declaration of Independence and fight in the streets to throw off an oppressive government that rules for its own interests and not ours, I can guarantee you, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that those very same soldiers whose votes you are now wooing will be the ones shooting us down in the street to defend the government we are trying to replace. And they won’t give a FUCK about how YOU are going to vote in the following election. And they also won’t care whether you backed up Move-On or not.

Oh, Hell. I give up. They’re ALL winners losers. And these are the very people our illustrious Democratic candidates refuse to disavow.

Interesting times.