Skip to main content

Why do they always seem so much more on the ball? Here's something from the RNC:
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie will discuss an ad posted on the website comparing President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. Tune in Today and catch Chairman Gillespie, on:

4:00 p.m. CNN's Inside Politics
7:00 p.m. MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews

Good for Gillespie. It's all worthless whining, but he's out there getting the GOoPer spin into the broadcast sphere. It's his job.

On the other hand, I've spent the last week showing how the New Republic is owned by Republicans and Bush donors, yet still is referred to as "liberal" and how the AP had two reporters cover the debate, and both did a hatchet job on the event. Yet I don't see Terry McAuliffe or anyone else on the agenda to talk about these outrages.

Why not?

And watch whether anyone, during those segments, brings up this NY Post opinion piece by Ralph Peters which equates Dean to Hitler.

In other words, why Gillespie cries over the MoveOn ads done by amateur filmakers, GOoPer allies are using the exact same rhetoric against one of our candidates.

If any of you watch these shows, please report back. Was the Peters' piece brought up?

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 07:04 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (3.66)
    Is this supposed to be tonight?  Any chance we could flood Hardball's e-mail box pointing out that hideous NY Post column to them?
  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (2.00)
    All the more reason I believe a new party is on the horizon. A party of disenfranchised Democrats.. A party led by Dean if he is not given the nomination.  ..::: wishful thinking::
    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (3.33)

      Especially wishful after Dean's most excellent opening gambit at the debate last night. I really admired that.
    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (2.00)
    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      I don't know Cody... but what's so bad about that comment?  If Dean is not given the nomination, he'd certainly be a great leader for discouraged Democrats in future years.  He's not exactly saying that Dean is leading the party to doom or anything.  I rated the comment up.

      We have to frame our arguments to build new support in 2004.

      by tunesmith on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 07:48:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
        If Dean doesn't get the nomination, a DLC-approved candidate is selected, and that candidate loses to Bush, then Dean can run again in 2008...

        And frankly, if Dean loses the nomination to a "mainstream" candidate playing not to lose, i'd be very concerned about losing the general.

      •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
        Exactly, tunesmith. I was not suggesting that I don't want Dean to get the nomination or that he will lose the general election. I am a Dean supporter and I want/believe he can go all the way. I just know how the DNC works and how they could deny Dean the nomination and give it to one of the party insiders. This would get Dean and a lot of other Democrats pretty pissed off. And with the recent shortcomings of the Democratic party, I would not be surprised to see a new one, with Dean as the leader.
  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    True Kos, except, the RNC chair's typically high level of public availability hasn't always worked to Republican advantage--both Barbour and Gilmore were pretty miserable failures. I haven't seen Gillespie, and won't tonight not having cable, but I doubt he's a Ron Brown.

    That said, yeah, neither's Terry Mac. And it's crucial to, as you do, put these issues in context as related--TNR as supposed "liberal" spokesjournal, lack of Dem talking head availability and fierceness, the laziness of the SCLM re Dems. Of course, this is exactly the set of problems that the CAP & etc renovation of the Dem superstructure started last year is designed to overcome--we need to encourage them to get a move on, as it were.

    Also FWIW on the RNC I highly doubt it is good strategy to give MoveOn's contest free publicity, however much it flaunts Godwin's law.

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    Is this necessarily a bad thing?  How many people will read the Peters piece?  

    But how many will read it if we make a big stink about it?  I'm all about defending ourselves, but some things are too stupid to defend against, and it becomes counterproductive.  

    In this case, a good offense is the best defense.  We've been hammering Bush for months, and it seems to be working well enough.  Why take time to be put on the defensive about Nazi analogies, of all things?

    Like you said, kos, "worthless" whining.  As in, "without worth."  

    We are not scaremongering, This is really happening. -Radiohead

    by strannix on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 07:21:30 PM PST

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (4.00)
    This is to be expected.  Gillespie is a spokesman by trade.  McAuliffe is a money man, who has only become a spokesman ex officio.

    Not that we couldn't, you know, maybe hire somebody to take on this job.  Sorta.  Kinda.  If that's OK.


    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      don't like terry mac because of the money issue. why doesn't the dnc or someone affiliated with them buy i.e.america radio from the uaw? instead of waiting till spring to hear the new "liberal" radio, why not grab this one? since the nra announced they were looking for a media outlet a few weeks ago, it would really be ironic if they bought it.

      don't like gillispie because he's a lying sack of shit and it looks like his face got caught in a vice.

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (3.66)
    The criticim of a contestant's entry into an open contest, by the RNC, is absurd on its face and they know that. Yet, as Kos says, they are going to make a little bit of hay without ad it won't reflect well on MoveOn and it certainly won't represent accurately what MoveOn is. They will spin it as if MoveOn endorses the ad, as if the ad was the contest winner. When I rated that ad I gave it low ratings because it is an idotic ad. ugh.
    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      There were a couple of these ads and I gave them 1s across the board.  Any comparison to Hitler is ridiculous.  There was also another one that compared the quote said by Herman Goering, I also gave that low marks.  I agree the quote has some validity and application, but it just polarizes and doesn't win anyone over.  
      •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
        I watched about 40 of the ads, there were a couple really good ones, but a lot of bad ones to.  I didn't see these particular ones, but I would have given them 1's, as I suspect would have most people voting. should have responded to the Gillespie smear with something like:

        "Well Ed, we just put them out there to let people vote on them.  If you didn't like the ad, you should have given it a 1 on a scale of 5 like the majority of other Democrats did."

        Turn it around.  Make it about how Moveon was empowering voters by giving them a choice.

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (4.00)
    Even though it is probably a waste of time, Hardball's e-mail address is

    I just fired this off:

    Dear Hardball -

    I understand RNC chair Ed Gillespie is going to be on tonight discussing the ads comparing President Bush to Adolph Hitler that mistakenly made their way into the contest on  Supposedly he is going to ask all the Democratic candidates to repudiate these ads.

    How about asking him if he'll repudiate today's New York Post Column comparing Howard Dean to BOTH Adolph Hitler AND Vladimir Lenin?


    "Dean wants to muzzle his Democratic competitors, too. He believes the Democratic National Committee should shut them up. His followers try to intimidate other presidential aspirants by surrounding the cars delivering them to their rallies and chanting to drown out their speech. Of course, Dean denies any foreknowledge or blame.   These are the techniques employed by Hitler's Brownshirts. Had Goebbels enjoyed access to the internet, he would have used the same swarm tactics as Dean's Flannelshirts. "

    "In Dean's alternate reality, everything the Bush administration has done and might do is a failure, no matter the facts. The president's even responsible for Mad Cow Disease. It's Goebbels again: Just keep repeating the lies until the lies assume the force of truth. "

    "Dean was already practicing the Big Lie. Montreal was just a stop on his journey from Munich to Berlin. He was already looking around for his Leni Riefenstahl. "

    "Dean's going to improve our intelligence system, too. How? If pressed, he may go so far as to mention HUMINT - a term he doesn't understand - or the need for more Arabic speakers. Great, Herr Howie. We agree. But how does he intend to develop our human intelligence capabilities? "

    "Dean began his campaign as an uncompromising Lenin. Now that his Bolsheviks have been organized, he's trying to pose as Gorbachev for the masses. But for anyone who pays attention to what this power-hungry huckster says and does, he comes off as a down-market Brezhnev. "

    Thanks for your time.  Looking forward to tonight's show.

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    re: ny post

    The ever popular free speech means I have a right not to have my opinions critizied meme.  

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    Is this hitler ad one of the finalists?

    We have to frame our arguments to build new support in 2004.

    by tunesmith on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 07:40:46 PM PST

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    I saw Inside Politics, there was no mention of the NY Post article... and Tweety is coming up, so I will bother to catch it.  I am not expecting it to be discussed.

    The Dems long ago let this crap fly without counter attack, in the great (and wrong) demonisation of the liberal left, and engaged in it over the years themselves frankly.  They still worry about us.  I'm hopeful for the future, but will keep breathing no matter what...

    •  Inside Politics/Harball Report (4.00)
      I too saw 'Inside Politics' and don't recall Ed Gillespie being asked about the New York Post op-ed piece.

      I'm watching Wes Clark on 'Hardball' now. A summary of his comments:

      • He's the only well-financed alternative to Howard Dean.
      • Only he can be viable in Southern states in the General Election.
      • Bush took the country to war essentially for political reasons and was pushed towards it by misguided neocon advisors and hawks like Dick Cheney.
      • The Bush Administration has no effective plan to deal with North Korea.
      • The US military was unprepared in its efforts to find Osama Bin Laden.
      • Clark's strategy to beat Dean in liberal states like NY, WI, CA, etc., etc.: his strong foreign policy positions, his compassion, and his commitment to people.
      • Advocated "pulling the country together" and condemned the divisive tactics used by Republicans during the Clinton Years.
      • Had no comment on Dean and his religious beliefs.
      • Promoted his tax cut plan and vision for America.
      In the 'Political Buzz' section, the following was discussed by Lawrence O'Donnell, Laura Ingraham, and Howard Feinman:
      • Beating up on Cheney is useful in a Democratic primary. Perhaps not as much in the General Election.
      • Clark's approach: remind voters of Bill Clinton's hounding and impeachment vs Dean's approach: "Let's move past Clinton."
      • Matthews - Dean has momentum, trailing Bush only by 51%-46%. 35%-40% of Democrats are "highly motivated." Others were skeptical. Matthews wondered if people were underestimating Dean. Fineman - election could be very close. Ingraham, as usual, did not say anything intelligent.
      Kos, FYI: Ed Gillespie was NOT a guest on 'Hardball' this evening.

      ps: Bill O'Reilly, spouting his typical illogical bs, is now discussing the ad with Lanny Davis. No mention of the NY Post piece. Dinner time!

      A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

      by JekyllnHyde on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 10:04:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    No mention on Wolf of the Peters article.

    He did read what he claimed to be a statement from MoveOn, but, who knows if it's what they actually did say  ...

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    Let's just compare everyone to Hitler and get it over with. We could even have a Hitler (h)Index and rate all politicians 1 to 10 with 1 being Gandhi and 10 being the Fuhrer.

    Seriously, the rhetoric has gotten way outta hand.

    On this side of the border, you wouldn't ever see an article like the Post's in a major media outlet about a Canadian pol. The outcry would come from all sides and would cause massive damage to the publisher in every way.

  •  These ads WERE appropriately removed... (none) MoveOn members.  Just because decisions at MoveOn are usually made by its 2 million members rather than some Executive Board, doesn't mean the ads weren't properly reviewed and deemed unfit.

    People should know, these two ads bombed in the ratings, as they should have.

    They were posted as ads in the ad contest, because they were properly submitted to the contest.  But both ads in question ranked very poorly.  I remember watching them, giving them the lowest ratings, and then confirming that their overall ranking was very low.  

    It's basically like the RNC saying that dKos is a neonazi website because somebody posted a diary entry that featured Nazi slurs.  Why didn't MoveOn pull the ads?  Well, my point is, they did.  MoveOn is made up of two million members who voted.  The ads are now gone because they were voted out.

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (4.00)
    Speaking of media control Kos, did you read about the hit piece published by UPI two days ago? I picked it up on Steve's blog. Just one paragraph:

    Dean has used the Internet to sign up supporters for "meet-ups" in their area. Essentially, it's a revamping of the "political love-in" from the '60s, where pot-smoking hippies would use politics as a guise for picking up dates. Now, Dean -- having "liberated" the gays of the state of Vermont by legislating civil unions, much in the same way he might imagine that Lincoln "liberated" the slaves -- is out to "free" every sex-starved, party-deprived Democrat and give them what they really want: a good time.

    The problem is that the Howard Dean gravy train seems to be sputtering toward the end of its track. One can only play "rotate-a-date" for so long, even if it is for a political cause. Looks like they're running out of beer keg money on the Dean campaign trail. They've dropped the fun, playful pretense and are now resorting to flat-out desperation.

    OK, so it was two paragraphs. Anyway, the curious thing is that author of this piece is one Rachel Marsden, a woman who seems to have some serious dating problems of her own, given that in 2002 she was arrested in Vancouver (she's Canadian), for harrasing an ex-boyfirend twice her age with e-mail and phone messages. Earlier, in 1997, she had accused a coach at Simon Fraser University of sexual harrasment, event for which he was first fired, and later cleared and rehired because Ms. Mardsen's story didn't quite hold up. Also, in 1999 this happened: SFU criminology professor Neil Boyd also alleged that Marsden was stalking him. Marsden was a student at the B.C. Institute of Technology's broadcasting school at the time. Maybe it's a method of getting good grades.

    But it gets a little stranger. This fine example of journalistic and relationship integrity (with an arrest record) can boast a letter of thanks from no other place than the White House, under this administration, and is currently engaged in the adquisition of a Master's Degree in National Security, or so she claims in her Web site. I hope her male professors are careful.

    Can you say GOP operative? Or what? Before you answer, look at UPI's description of her:

    (Rachel Marsden is a freelance writer living in New York.)


    (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

    If you Google this individual you will find many other strange things.

    Oh, and don't miss her rather revealing photo section. The link to it was disabled for some reason.

    This is the sort of thing we are going to have to fight from now on, isn't it? Well, DeanDefense better get started again, because the heavy stuff is going to be incoming fast and furious from now on.

    And Kos, since you have some credentials of your own, why not submit a piece to UPI, and test their interest in a true open forum. You know, do a little thing on something like bush having been AWOL for a year.

    •  Rachel Marsden (none)
      They've dropped the fun, playful pretense and are now resorting to flat-out desperation.

      Sounds like Rachel (rotate-a-date) Marsden went to a Dean meetup and struck out. Poor girl.

      Either that or she's simply projecting about herself and the rest of her sex-starved, party-deprived, media colleagues.

      Or both.

      Knowledge is the Past. Wisdom is the Future. - Herbie Hancock

      by Night Owl on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 09:06:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Rachel Marsden (none)
        Well, if a woman with her looks resorts to stalking men, for whatever reason, I'd say she has intimate knowledge of the heart of the desperate. She's projecting, definitely.

        She needs Dean meetups rather badly. But she's right-wing neonut, so she can't go. Who was it who said we destroy what we can't have?

    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      Ahh, the price of infamy...

      "The Angelfire site you are trying to reach has been temporarily suspended due to excessive bandwidth consumption.

      The site will be available again in a few hours"

    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      If you check out the bio and pic of Rachel Marsden @:

      Having worked in politics and journalism in Washington, DC, New York City, and her native Canada, Rachel Marsden brings the Washington insider perspective to Canadians and the Canadian perspective to Americans.

      Rachel writes regularly for Debate USA, GOP USA, Political USA, The Right Report, American Daily, and the Starr Journal.  Her work has been featured in various print publications around the world, as well as online with The Federalist, The Cosmic Tribune,, Bourque Newswatch, and Google News, among others.

      Bio and pic

      It becomes immediately obvious whose throne this hacktastic, SYT, is trying to usurp:

      Ann Coulter

      I've been waiting for you, Ann. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I met you I was but the learner. Now, I am the master.

      Along with Nedra, it appears we have some sort of newly constituted troika/crypto-conservative Algonquin Roundtable of conservative women trash journalists on the horizon.

      If we can identify nine more, perhaps we can do a calendar.

      Can anyone think of some names for a calendar like this?

      •  2004 Calendar (none)
        If we can identify nine more, perhaps we can do a calendar.

        Here's a few off the top of my head

        Kellyanne Conway, Betsy Hart, Heather Nauert, Michelle Malkin, Linda Chavez, Monica Crowley, Juliet Huddy, Angela McGlowan, Brigitte Quinn, Linda Vester, and E.D. Hill

        All appear either regularly or periodically on Fox News -- not exactly a bastion of enlightened political thinking. And all endowed with that fine conservative Republican tradition: anti-intellectualism.

        A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma

        by JekyllnHyde on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 10:10:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    Ha that's funny. Kos fell for the RNC's marketing. McAuliff is out there just as much if not more - it's just not in a neat package presented on the DNC site.
  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    I think the problem is less that McAuliffe is not out there and more that the media will pretty much uncritically publish and distribute anything that Matt Drudge has to say, no matter how ill-informed, how specious or how wrong.
  •  RNC Lies (none)
    I listened to Gillespie on the Fox News sunday show yesterday, without giving a dime to Fox News or their advertisers, thanks to CSPAN Radio.

    For 20 minutes Gillespie spouted one lie after another. It was hard to listen to him lying over and over again and not having ANYONE on to correct him.

    Apparently that part of the transcript isn't online yet, but I plan to dissect it piece by piece when it shows up.

    He repeatedly said MoveOn was going to spend 7 million airing this "Nazi-Bush" ad, which is an out and out lie. He went on to talk about Dean, spreading more lies.

    It was galling and apalling that the media lets this party schill have half an hour of national television and radio time without a single smackdown on the fact that he was not telling the truth, or even coming close to telling the truth. Not once was he interrupted and corrected. It's pathetic.

    •  Re: RNC Lies (none)
      Any quotations from that session?  My rethug uncle actually sent me a link to the movie yesterday, and I'm currently in the process of writing a rather lengthy e-mail to him showing that this movie is a non-issue.

      One of the people who criticized moveon for that ad is James Tische (or Tische: I've seen it spelled both ways), of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.  He said it was "grotesque and egregious" because Hitler "was such a heinous individual that it's unseemly to bring him into the American political debate" (this quoted from the SF Gate).  A little research on the CPMAJOrganizations: it's lockstep in with the Repubs.  Tische and the organization's executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein met with Bush at the White House:

      That's from the Republican Jewish Coalition website.  You can guess Tische won't be making any noise about the Ralph Peters piece from the Post.  

      More research on that Organization turns up a lot of similar stuff, all of it very much in praise of Bush.

  •  The reverse, actually (none)
    You wrote: "while Gillespie cries over the MoveOn ads done by amateur filmakers, GOoPer allies are using the exact same rhetoric against one of our candidates"

    I think it's the reverse, actually.  The GOP is using the MoveOn thing as COVER for what they're doing.

    My observation about Republicans is they accuse their opponents of doing things they do.  This is called self-acquittal.  They use this as a tactic to cover what THEY are really doing.

    •  Re: The reverse, actually (none)
      I wasn't allowed to get away with "Everyone else is doing it!" when I was a kid. I don't see why we should let the children at the RNC get away with it, either.

      "Quick! Did you see that? It's the Invisible Hand of Capitalism, and it's giving me the finger!"

      by xinhoj on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 11:54:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: The reverse, actually (none)
      Self-acquittal is a great offensive tactic: even if someone catches on and says, "I'm not doing X, you are!" it's just a he-said, she-said, morally neutral debate in the eyes of the press. From "Al Gore lies" to revisionist history" to "Support the troops!" to "hate speech" (from the party of Ann Coulter, natch) to "How dare your associates compare our candidate to Hitler!"
  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    No mention on Wolf of the Peters article... He did read what he claimed to be a statement from MoveOn...

    So did either Inside Politics or Goofball actually have someone from MoveOn there?

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (4.00)
    Well, Woodruff did a better job hitting Gillespie than I would have thought:

    ED GILLESPIE, RNC CHAIRMAN: Judy, good to see you, too. Thank you.

    WOODRUFF: I want to ask you about this ad. You've been out talking about it. But, in fact, says it was only on the Web site for two weeks. It was one of 1500 proposed ads. Maybe at most a few hundred people saw it. What's the big deal?

    GILLESPIE: Well the big deal is what they said when they started this contest was that they would not post anything on their Web site that they didn't consider to be appropriate for television. They posted the ad you referenced there and a second ad that directly compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler, both of them being deemed apparently by to be appropriate for television.

    And it's not appropriate for television. It's not appropriate political discourse. Every one of the Democratic candidates running for president today should repudiate this. They should join the Simon Wiesenthal Center in urging to apologize for posting this ad on its Web site, on its official Web site. And they should (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that because they are the ones who benefit from's efforts to defeat the president in this election year.

    WOODRUFF: But took the ad, the proposed ad, off of its Web site more than a week ago...


    WOODRUFF: It is now running on the Republican National Committee Web site. And I guess my question is are you not prolonging it by leaving it on your Web site?

    However, no rep from MoveOn, or even a statement.

    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      The only place that this has run has been run for public consumption is at the Republican National Committee web site.
      Other than a few hundred members of, who rated this ad very low, no one would have seen it if the Republicans weren't using it to rally their base.
    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      The only place that this has run has been run for public consumption is at the Republican National Committee web site.
      Other than a few hundred members of, who rated this ad very low, no one would have seen it if the Republicans weren't using it to rally their base.
      •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
        How is that the RNC is airing this ad?  Isn't it copyrighted material?

        Does anyone know if the idiots who made these ads have for some benighted reason given the Republicans permission to run them?

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    MoveOn is going to have to hire a press person to deal with this kind of stuff.  This is only the beginning of an effort to undermine their credibility and discourage people from making contributions.  This attempt was apparently aimed at Jews, but we can expect more.  It's fine with me if MoveOn uses my contributions for counterattack.  BTW, I agree with the above poster that the Repubs are always accusing the Dems and liberals of stuff they do themselves.  

    Whatever you can do or dream, begin it, for boldness has power, and genius, and magic in it. -Goethe

    by Mimikatz on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 11:09:20 PM PST

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    Aaron Brown showed more of the finalist ads dwelling on Bush's lies, than clips of the offending ad.
  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    Re the Peters column in the Post:
    Isn't it more than a bit "below the belt" to go for the Hitler comparison against a man whose wife is Jewish?
    •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
      Yeah, but Jackie Mason called George Soros, Holocaust survivor, a self-hating Jew, so, well, the  obvious point: the nutjobs who are also Jews are all too willing to exploit the Holocaust for political ends.  Here's Mason:

      "If the unhappy day ever comes when Israel is deserted by the rest of the world, Mr. Soros should understand that all the conversion in the world, as his mother did, or all the passing as a non-Jew, as he did to survive World War II, will not help."

      When this first appeared, someone said something like "What, Soros should have just marched right into the ovens wearing his 'Hello, I'm a Jew' button?"  And note Mason's substitution of WWII for 'Holocaust,' which is what he's really talking about.

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    Have not read it yet, but based on the Mother Jones Book Review by Douglas Brinkley, I plan to go out to bookstore today and pick up Kevin Phillips new book on the Bush Family History -- just published, and according to Brinkley, the tightly researched and sourced 4 generation history does include all the "Hitler" stuff -- as well as all the Enron stuff, all the Saudi stuff, and so forth -- all between two covers, and written by -- yep, a Former Republican.  (Kevin Phillips early work included "Emerging Republican Majority" in the early 70's -- and he worked for Nixon on such things as "Southern Strategy."  In recent years Phillips has ome to reject some of his youthful efforts -- thus "Former Republican" is a good moniker.  

    It strikes me that attacking the "move on" obscure ad may be a tactic for avoiding discussion of Phillips book, with its "bush family connections to the Nazi regime" materials.  Of course such materials are not new to net researchers and readers -- but Kevin Phillips is "validation" -- and he is a "Former Republican" who worked for Nixon.  

    We all need to understand how these right wing tactics work -- we have watched enough of it, we should have learned by now -- but what happens is they do a song and dance and jump up and down about something "marginal" such as the entry to the Move on contest -- when what they really don't want to talk about is the mainstream book just coming to your local store, by a popular and respected former Republican Historian -- that makes the evidence available about how the Bush Family was in bed with the Nazi's.  

    The "jump up and down about something marginal" is a tactic we should recognize by now.  

  •  Re: The RNC versus the DNC (none)
    This Gillespie appearance has very little to do with Hitler, or with Dean, for that matter. It's all an attempt to demonize the word 'MoveOn' just like any other word nowadays that need only be uttered by the right-wing Wurlitzer, and those who don't know any better will immediately recognize it as something contemptuous. Soon enough, the Safires and the Krauthammers of the world won't need to EXPLAIN what MoveOn is; they'll only need to mention it in the same sentence with the person they are trying to degrade to get the desired effect.

    And there wouldn't be the need to do this if MoveOn weren't a powerful thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site