Apparently, "Petraeus" sounds enough like "betray us" to make some intern at Moveon.org think it would be a great idea to make up a new and disparaging nickname for the good General. Come on people. Who green-lighted this? Are you TRYING to torch your credibility? Let me introduce you to a little bit of important PR calculus: if you're going to engage in character assassination, you have to do so in so clever a manner that even your target can't deny the humor without being pegged as a stuffed shirt. Homophones aren't going to cut the mustard.
So embarrassing.
General Petraeus is a pawn, okay? He is trying to put a good face on things because his job is to win the war in Iraq. Not to decide whether we should be fighting it. Not to declare the policy failed. Just to win. If his boss gave him the latitude to decide those other things, he would be a less sympathetic character, but in the current situation, THAT'S NOT HIS JOB. Do you suppose he got where he is by giving up? This guy is doing his level best to spin gold from hay, and while that may make him a little delusional, it doesn't make him malignant. The president may have been acting like this is all Petraeus' baby, but seriously. This is George Bush we're talking about. Not exactly what we would call a reliable source.
So please, Moveon.org, next time you find yourself in the kind of paroxysm of group-think that led to that headline, remind yourself that that's how teenagers and coke-addled studio executives think, not effective political actors. The rest of the copy in the ad wasn't terrible, but who do you think read past the headline? Anyone who isn't already in the choir? Not so much.
Bush league, folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"teenagers and coke-addled studio executives think"
I think you just described who works for MoveOn.org.
Also, this just might be another Rovian Plot. That guy is a genius. It's like the Democrats are handing the Republicans the 2008 presidency on a silver platter. I bet even Mormon Mitt could get elected over Hillary and Obama at this rate.
I don't think any Republican candidate can take Obama, certainly not Romney. Maybe McCain, if all the cards fall in his favor for the next year. The Democrats, knowing this, will nominate Clinton. Because they're losers.
Obama is not enough of a free trade advocate and has been linked to closely with Clinton in campaigning. Plus he's from Chicago which is known for its corruption despite if he is corrupt or not.
Rudy could easily beat him. And if you're talking party lines (since Rudy does have a lot of Democratic NY behind him) I bet Thompson could beat Obama too. It's too bad hes always played a supporting actor. Romney and McCain don't have a... err... prayer.
You're crazy. Giuliani is going to self-destruct in the primaries. Thompson is a joke, a sideshow, a subplot. Obama can only benefit from comparison to Hillary. McCain is going to regain more momentum every time he appears in public with another member of the dog and pony show that is the Republican field. As the only guy in that particular clown car to repudiate the use of torture, he will rise to the top.
We're putting money on this, you and I.
Republicans are so uncomfortable with McCain that they chose Bush. That is a picture that is worth money on a bet. That he has been tortured and is against tortue is akin to a guy writhing in great pain but won't die on a small island with a small community of people. Eventually, someone will murder that guy just to erase the reminder that he is in pain and there is nothing you can do to help him.
Everytime Congress gets on tv The American people will remember that they voted these yahoos into office in the last election cycle, and the funny thing is, every time Congress is on tv, Bush's ratings get better.
Thompson may be a side show, but he's not joke. I'll put money on him being the V.P. candidate because of his appeal to "conservatives."
And everytime Rudy gets on tv and starts talking about Federalism, Republican types say to themselves "ok, he might be pretty liberal, but he doesn't want to impose his beliefs on Idaho."
He's America's Mayor, man. I personally would rather have Thompson at the helm, a guy who's every answer will be "Leave it to the states to decide, I'm going to take a nap" is exactly who I want as President.
And even tho the bumper sticker says: "Thompson (because Giuliani is just too hard to spell)" Rudy has the best looking bumper sticker there is (thanks, of course, the hardball politics of NYC. Rudy has NY. Liberal Democratic NY. Unless Thompson can secure the Republican primary, Rudy has won this election.
Dave -- what's in the President's job description if his m.o. is, "Leave it to the states to decide, I'm going to take a nap"? Weeding the Rose Garden?
Jeff, The Presidents role is to enforce National Law and preside over the military. So if there is clearly a law that needs to be passed for all states, then he should be responsible for that... Except I've found very few clear laws that states themselves couldn't take care of. For example: Murder: Texas has a death penalty while California has a slap on the wrist.
And since most national laws have more to do with taxation and power for the federal government (see: how to become and continue getting reelected as a congressman and senator) Their actual necessity is, in my opinion, overstated in todays political process.
However, if there is a threat against our nation by an outside force, then President shall wake from his nap, organize our military, kick some ass, reassert his authority before it's time for a beauty sleep.
We are a united states, which technically means we are 50 individual states tied together by one constitution. local governments are better for enacting laws at local levels. What's right for NYC is not always what's right for Utah. Just because one high profile case gets blown out of proportion in DC doesn't mean a law needs to be passed on a National Level so that Alaskans have to follow it.
It's called Frederalism... err I mean, Federalism. ;)
Post a Comment