Before MoveOn's "General Betray Us," there was Limbaugh's "Senator Betrayus"
SUMMARY: Rush Limbaugh has called the MoveOn.org "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent," but months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Senator Chuck Hagel: "Senator Betrayus." Though Limbaugh has taken exception to accusations that he has attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, the "Senator Betrayus" remark is one of several instances in which Limbaugh has done so.
On September 10, MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" critical of Gen. David Petraeus, appeared in The New York Times. On the September 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called the advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent." However, months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Senator Betrayus." On the January 25 broadcast (subscription required) of his radio show, Limbaugh broke from his commentary on an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney on the January 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room to say: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest."
In a September 10 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that the General Betray Us ad "appears to have been borrowed indirectly from Rush Limbaugh and noted that "[a]ccording to a Free Republican [sic: Free Republic] diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel." In the January 26 post Smith cited, Free Republic commenter "Recovering_Democrat" wrote that "Rush said on his show yesterday that a caller suggested the new name for Senator Hagel."
Indeed, on the February 4 edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos told Hagel that Limbaugh "calls you 'Senator Betrayus.' " On the February 5 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh played an audio clip of Stephanopoulos telling Hagel that Limbaugh calls him "Senator Betrayus." Limbaugh didn't disavow the characterization; in fact, Limbaugh said in response to Hagel's comments: "But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. 'Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants,' but didn't dispute the substance of my point."
On the September 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis responded to questions about the MoveOn.org ad by suggesting that the ad was no less outrageous "than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org" and asking "why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism." Fox News co-host and weatherman Steve Doocy said, "I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. Later that day on his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh played audio from Davis' Fox & Friends appearance, and said: "I hope Fox does a program on me. I won't participate in it because I don't do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they're invested in defeat. I've said that it's just -- it's unacceptable, it's indecent the way they attack General Petraeus."
In addition to his "Senator Betrayus" comment, Limbaugh has repeatedly and explicitly attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, as Media Matters for America has documented:
- In a commentary segment on the September 7, 2006, broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Limbaugh said, "But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism."
- On the August 21, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."
- On the August 23, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "It's time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you're damn right we're questioning your patriotism." Limbaugh subsequently featured this self-described "brilliant El Rushbo monologue" on his website under the heading, "You're Damn Right, American Left; We're Questioning Your Patriotism."
- On the September 17, 2004, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that half of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry's (MA) base "hates the military, hates America, hates Bush, hates the world except for France and Germany."
Additionally, on September 11, Limbaugh referred to terrorist Osama bin Laden as "U -- Ubama -- I'm sorry, Usama," continuing a pattern, which Media Matters for America has documented, of conflating Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with bin Laden.
From the January 25 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Does that sound like Cheney is standing up in righteous indignation and pointing his finger at Blitzer and demanding that he shut up and accusing them doing a hit piece? Does it sound like that at all? No, it doesn't. Next question from Wolf Blitzer. "What if the Senate passes a resolution saying this is not a good idea? Will that stop you?"
CHENEY [audio clip]: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], among others, in his testimony about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, "But we don't agree with the mission you've been given."
LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel. Here's now one final bit -- well, two more. Question from Blitzer: "Here's the problem that you have. The administration, credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the 'last throes,' the comment you made a year and a half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats and a lot of Republicans now are saying that they don't believe you anymore."
From the February 4 edition of ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You're taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week.
LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus."
HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants.
From the February 5 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: The word of my [Nobel Peace Prize] nomination just continues to roil drive-by media outlets, and it continued over the weekend. Then, on George Stephanopoulos' show on Sunday, he had Chuck Hagel as his -- as guest. They had this exchange.
[begin audio clip]
STEPHANOPOULOS: You're taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week.
LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus."
HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. "Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants," but didn't dispute the substance of my point.
From Smith's September 10 Politico blog post:
A footnote to the fuss over MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad, a favored GOP talking point of the day. (Genius? Idiocy? Interested in readers' views.)
Anyway, it also appears to have been borrowed, indirectly, from Rush Limbaugh. According to a Free Republican diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel.
From the September 11 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: The Democrats are accusing Petraeus of being a patsy. The Democrats are accusing him of lying. I've suggested to you that if you ever -- 'cause, you know, I'm talented here, folks. I can read the stitches on the fastballs. I can see between the lines. I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, and I am telling you that when they say Petraeus is lying, it means they are. When they say that Petraeus is a puppet, they are.
And I'll tell you who's pulling their strings: MoveOn.org and that -- that contemptible, indecent ad that ran yesterday in The New York Times. The kook, fringe, left-wing blogosphere -- that's who they're afraid of. They're not afraid of U -- Ubama -- I'm sorry, Usama. They are not afraid of the enemy.
From the September 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Right now, Republicans have condemned the MoveOn.Org ad criticizing General Petraeus. "Betray Us," Petraeus, you know what we're talking about. But what do the Democrats have to say, and how was President Bush's address received across America as well? Time now for a fair and balanced debate. Former special counsel to the President Clinton and author of Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics is Destroying America Lanny Davis joins us live, screen left, appropriately enough. And screen right, former RNC senior adviser Terry Holt. We thank you very much, Terry, for joining us as well.
HOLT: Thank you.
DOOCY: All right, Lanny, let's start with you. None of the -- I know you're familiar with Hillary Rodham Clinton, she wants to be president. She has not come out and denounced this ad. Do you think she should?
DAVIS: I think every single Democrat should say that MoveOn.org using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org who have a right under the First Amendment --
DOOCY: Sure.
DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of -
DOOCY: Right, but Lanny --
DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush's speech last night, which is important.
DOOCY: Well, we are going to get to that. That was our lead story today, but should Hillary denounce it? I know you said all Democrats. Why hasn't she?
DAVIS: Um, I think Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don't know why, but again, you're still focused on Moveon.org rather than President Bush. Why are you, and you said we're going to get to that --
DOOCY: Yeah, we will.
DAVIS: -- but you're still following up on an issue -- why are we -- why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn't Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox & Friends for a second. Why MoveOn.org, which I denounce -- why are you not denouncing Rush Limbaugh questioning my patriotism for disagreeing on the Iraq war?DOOCY: Lanny -- Lanny -- I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I'll look into it --
DAVIS: Why don't you -- why don't you do a study and invite me back, and we'll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left.
DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you're filibustering. Let's go to Terry. Terry, you're comment on this.
HOLT: Well, I think that MoveOn.org has quickly become one of the largest and most influential special interest groups dominating the Democratic Party, and I think they won't denounce it simply because they're afraid that they'll be denounced by MoveOn.org, who carries with them the perception that they have a stranglehold on the liberal Democratic base. I mean, this is one of those groups that nobody had ever heard of five years ago, and now every politician on the Democratic side runs in fear whenever MoveOn.org utters a word.
From the September 14 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Lanny Davis is upset at me. The former Clinton spinmeister was on the Fox News Channel this morning on Fox & Friends, and Steve Doocy -- does the weather -- interviewed Lanny Davis and said, look, I know you're familiar with Hillary. She wants to be president. She's not come out and denounced this MoveOn.org ad. Do you think she should?
[begin audio clip]
DAVIS: Every single Democrat should say that MoveOn.org using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like MoveOn.org who have a right under the First Amendment --
DOOCY: Sure.
DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of --
DOOCY: Right, but Lanny --
DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush's speech last night.
LIMBAUGH: So the conversation continues with Lanny Davis bringing me back into it.
[begin audio clip]
DAVIS: Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don't know why, but again, you're still focused on MoveOn.org rather than President Bush. Why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn't Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox & Friends for a second. Why MoveOn.org, which I denounce -- why are you not denouncing Rush Limbaugh questioning my patriotism for disagreeing on the Iraq war?
DOOCY: Lanny -- Lanny -- I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I'll look into it --
DAVIS: Why don't you -- why don't you do a study and invite me back, and we'll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left.
DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you're filibustering.
[end audio clip]
LIMBAUGH: I welcome it. I hope Fox does a program on me. I won't participate in it because I don't do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they're invested in defeat. I've said that it's just -- it's unacceptable, it's indecent the way they attack General Petraeus. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if this conclusion has come to anybody else out there, but during the Petraeus hearings -- and even in the postmortem -- you know, not one liberal, not one Democrat has asked what can we do to help you and the troops. While they were talking to General Petraeus, Lanny, there wasn't one Democrat in the House or Senate on either committee that asked the general what they could do to help him and the troops.
<a href="[link to balkin.blogspot.com] Levinson:</a> A student of mine at the UT Law School, who had had combat experience in both Afghanistan and Iraq, referred to him as "General Betrayus" because of what was thought to be his inordinate interest in good publicity (and presumed self-promotion) rather than concern for his troops.
- Fox News co-host and weatherman Steve Doocy -
lmao...careful AJ...being trained by Brian Levy might not be all it's cracked up to be.
That really was a funny part of this - the weather guy is now deciding what constitutes acceptable political discourse.
remember they are robots. they wear earpieces into which producer s can give them hints ( or actual answers ). To be a FOX analyst all you have to know is how to wear an earpiece and repeat what you hear.
Like Bush in the debates...
Limbaugh didn't disavow the characterization; in fact, Limbaugh said in response to Hagel's comments: "But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. 'Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants,' but didn't dispute the substance of my point."
And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why MMFA needs to exist, and why Democrats need to stop taking it up the a** from people like Limbaugh: "he didn't dispute the substance of my point". No, he didn't, and he should have. He should have called Limbaugh on it and attacked him for it. Instead, he took the "high road" like all the pathetic Democrats do, and don't respond. Well that's where it gets them.
Rush could come out tomorrow and declare that strawberry ice cream causes cancer, and then, the next day, claim it cures cancer, and his sheep will buy it.
He has no shame because the dittoheads are completely incapable of thinking for themselves. All contradictions and hypocrisy are magically swept away by the force of his bombast.
You listen to this and you laugh if you have half a brain in your head. But the reason there will never be a "liberal Rush Limbaugh" is that advertisers love fools like his audience: they will believe ANYTHING.
Elly, the "handle" you are searching for is the self-imposed "MIND NUMBED ROBOTS".
I am still confused by the MoveOn ad as to why Democrats should denounce it. SwiftBoat Liars aside, whenever the Coulters, Hannitys and Limbaughs etc. say outrageous things such as Liberals are godless and unpatriotic, the Republans are not up to the task of denouncing their hate mongers.
Such frauds the Republans happen to be. And Rush, instead of Fox doing a show about you, WITHOUT you, no, that would be a disservice. C'mon Big Guy, come out of your shell and debate people. Your FOLLOWERS demand to see you in action rather than hiding behind a microphone...a GOLDEN microphone. You are the leader of the Rat Pack. Show them how you can outwit the Liberals. If not, your true colors will have been defined. GOLD, don't think so....YELLOW would be more appropriate.
Maybe Limbaugh should sue Moveon.org for plagiarism. According to the Republicans, it's okay to call Dems terrorists and to publically humiliate Generals (aka Shinseki). It's okay for Republicans to criticize and name call former Veterans (McCain/Kerry/Cleland). It is frustrating the Republicans still "control the message," that permeates our media.
Hi!
MoveOn's "General Betray Us" Ad ...
Was an ill-advised tactic. I still support MoveOn but I've sent them a gentle suggestion.
MoveOn, don't you see the president is hiding behind this honorable and respectable general? Bush ordered General Patreous to sell his Iraq War policy. -Shameful -
So please don't kill the messenger. He's just following orders. The general didn't create this blunder in Iraq. Please focus your MoveOn ads on the creator of the mess in Iraq. GWB
Shame on George W. Bush for hiding behind General Patreous. For hiding behind his former Attorney General, his Sec. of War and his former Sec. of State, Colin Powell. Don't forget "Heck of a Job, Brownie."
They were all just following orders from the man you need to direct your ads to. Go get him and turn him every way but loose. You might also throw a few good ads at the Republicans in Congress.
Thank You! - -Sam I Am--
Just a moment to say that Rush Limpbrain has Betrayed Us ( Our Country) that is. What a Jerk.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is a rare conservative who has been both brave enough to serve our country in war and brave enough to be honest and truthful about the Bush War as a Senator.
I hope he changes his mind and runs for office again. As an Independent or for Democratic Senator or President.
Correction on General Patreous ... I said:
"MoveOn, don't you see the president is hiding behind this honorable and respectable general? "
My Correction:
Dis-Honorable and Un-Respectable general. Patreous was not honest with us. His only objective was to support his Commander in Chief. The general doesn't realize he owes his allegiance to the people of this nation.
Patreous should follow General Colin Powell's lead by admitting he too was selling the Bush War Policy with faulty information.
BetrayUs will never follow Powell's lead because he just is not, and will never be, as honest as Powell is.
You are so right! General BetrayUs definitely lied, again, as he had done at least twice previously, in order to "support" the lying Bungle in the White House. Please recall BetrayUs' words that the "insurgency is winding down." Recall his words that "we are making progress." Liar, Liar!
While I might honor the service he (Petraeus) has done, these lies are no part of honorable service to the nation; but only of his service to the jacka$$ in the White House, and all that evil cohort.
Sorry, bub, but it's time to stop defending the messengers of the evil message, too. Tell this to the Nazi's at the Nuremburg trials, who said they were "just following orders"...they were put to death...
The difference between what Limbaugh said and what moveon.org said is obviously that moveon attacked a general of the military while Limbaugh attacked a Senator. I don't agree with Limbaugh's characterization either, but it's much less controversial to attack a politician than it is to attack a member of the military. The military should generally be off limits from criticism.
Why is a general above any criticism? Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting a general should be gratuitously or falsely attacked, but why are you suggesting that generals are above attack if they spread dishonest information? General Westmoreland gave false info about Viet Nam, and he was justly criticized for it. When generals are put on a pedastal and their words are treated as unimpeachable, democracy will fall apart, and we will be taking a giant step toward fascism. It was the adoration of the officer class in Germany that helped lead to the Second World War. It was the officer class that blamed everything on the politicians and acted like they had never lost the military situation that made people in Germany believe that they had been "stabbed in the back" by the politicians and Jews back in Berlin. When military men speak about ground situations they have every incentive to make themselves seem better by exaggerating success and downplaying setbacks. Please do not suggest that military men should not be questioned. They most certainly should be.
Mark:
"Why is a general above any criticism? Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting a general should be gratuitously or falsely attacked, but why are you suggesting that generals are above attack if they spread dishonest information?"
The cowards with MoveOn attacked Gen. Petraeus BEFORE he gave his testimony? And now the cowards at Media Matters for al Qaeda are siding with those cowards.
Pathetic.
Good one Kevin. Your insights are very helpful. Media Matters is totally working for al Quaeda. Super good work from a smart guy. Thank you. On behalf of everyone, thank you. A grateful nation thanks you.
You want answers?
I think I'm entitled.
You want answers?
I want the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
Kevin: You would have a valid point to make if you can point to something in the ad which states that General Petraeus was going to say something which was never said. Otherwise, the fact that the criticism came before the General's appearance before Congress is completely irrelevant. And the rest of your post is so ridiculous ("Media Matters for al Queda"?) it is not even worth responding to. My main point was "why are generals above criticism?" If you have a real response to make to that question, please make it. If not, please do not change the subject.
a high ranking general should never be above
criticism. the only way to get to four stars and above it to be political. once you enter that arena then you are open to criticism. remember, bush got rid of the generals who disagreed with his view on iraq. so if those generals had a different political view thay would still have a job
Mark:
Media Matters for al Qaeda is objectively pro-terrorist. Any rational visitor to this site knows that that is the case.
The cowards at MoveOn attacks Gen. Petraeus before he even open his mouth. Things like this is making the military increasingly Republican. We got guys busting their asses over in Iraq for fools in MoveOn and Media Matters for al Qaeda.
And now the morons from the right like Kevin are flocking in to do their duty as required by the propaganda parrot guidelines. Making no sense just wildly insulting us and snivelling we wont conform strictly to rightwing propaganda. It must be strange on Planet Wingnut.
"The military should generally be off limits from criticism." - RINO Hunter-
Well Mr. Hunter, I agree with that .... And the military should ALWAYS be off limits from ...
*Doing a sales job for a president
*Defending a president vs. our country.
*Defending a president vs. We The People
*Publicly Promoting a Failed War Policy
*Publicly Reporting False information
That's was Colin Powell's funtion. Where's Condi Rice? That's her job now, not an active duty military person.
The military should generally be off limits from criticism.
I'm surprised to hear this from an American (if so).
NOBODY is off limits from criticism in a democracy with freedom of speech. Especially not the goverment or it's agents and not the military either. And don't say "not in time of war" either. That is the one time we RELY on freedom of speech to prevent our goverment and our war machine from running amuck.
Any patriotic American should welcome dissent. If our causes cannot withstand critic by the masses, they are not just.
Having said that, I hate name-calling by either side. It shows a weakness. I dislike that progressives are tempted to imitate the successful use of ad hominem by the neocons.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to criticize the military. You certainly do. But you should expect to be criticized if you do so. That's all I'm saying.
No, that's not what you said. You wrote, "The military should generally be off limits from criticism."
You can't backpeddle out of that one.
Yes, of course, we will be criticised by mindless propagandists who think total conformity to power is somehow reasonable. Who fail to understand ANYONE can be wrong or corrupt and NO ONE is exempt from criticism or above it because of their status or their position no matter WHAT that position is. PEOPLE are people, they can be wrong or venal no matter what postition they have risen to. Only the most simpleminded or completely brainwashed dont understand this simple concept
RINO,
Credible analysts have criticized the Bush administration for putting Gen. Patraeus in the political role of hawking Bush policy. By doing so they are politicizing the military and that’s wrong. I suspect that it was purposely done in an attempt to use a military face to insulate them from political criticism. Now they are using criticism of the policy asserted by Patraeus as somehow being an attack on the military. The only people I believe that except this as an attack on the military are the brainwashed members of the Republican base which thankfully is very small but to Bush's advantage are extremely loyal and will easily except and propagate Republican talking points. That said I thought the MOVEON add was a frivolous waste of money, and they shouldn’t have made the issue personal. I hate messenger attacking, stick to debating the issue. Furthermore the attention devoted to this from the congress was also a complete waste of time and money. I would like to have some of my money refunded for the time they took to draw up and vote on resolutions condemning a newspaper ad. It’s ridiculous.RINO,
Credible analysts have criticized the Bush administration for putting Gen. Patraeus in the political role of hawking Bush policy. By doing so they are politicizing the military and that’s wrong. I suspect that it was purposely done in an attempt to use a military face to insulate them from political criticism. Now they are using criticism of the policy asserted by Patraeus as somehow being an attack on the military. The only people I believe that except this as an attack on the military are the brainwashed members of the Republican base which thankfully is very small but to Bush's advantage are extremely loyal and will easily except and propagate Republican talking points. That said I thought the MOVEON add was a frivolous waste of money, and they shouldn’t have made the issue personal. I hate messenger attacking, stick to debating the issue. Furthermore the attention devoted to this from the congress was also a complete waste of time and money. I would like to have some of my money refunded for the time they took to draw up and vote on resolutions condemning a newspaper ad. It’s ridiculous.Recently, I saw a bumper sticker for sale in a more rural part of Ohio ... "Liberals are terrorists!"
Well, anybody who puts that on their broken-down, rusted pickup with the perfectly-oiled guns on the rack is banking on the fact that liberals are much less terrorists than Republicans and "conservatives" ... because, if what their bumper stickers said were true ... boom ... no more pickup truck ... apparently, we value life more than Repukes do ...
I think what did it for a lot of people my self included,is the fact that there has been all this back and forth about the war and the only thing that has come out of this is that(12) twelve more senators than needed to stop this garbage found the time to vote on this trumped up sup[posed insult to Pertraeus .
I don't get it. General Betrayus is at least slightly witty (although VERY slightly and still intensely disrespectful). Senator Betrayus doesn't make sense--it's not a play on his last name. Also last time I checked Hagle wasn't a four star general putting his life on the line overseas. Once again, Media Matters draws a disingenuous comparison at best.
The "last time I checked Hagle wasn't a four star general putting his life on the line overseas. Once again, Media Matters draws a disingenuous comparison at best. " - -OBSERVER - -
I found that comment Very Interesting Observer ... At Worst!
I served our country with Hagel. Like Hagel I was just a grunt who was ordered by 4-Star Generals into life or death missions. These generals are mostly kept very comfortably away and well protected and it's their job to put Hagel's life and my life on the line. Do you see 4-stars in our VA Hospitals with missing legs and arms. No!
I will never short change or dis-honor the generals service as you have done to Hagel.
Chuck Hagel:
Hagel is a Vietnam War veteran, having served in the U.S. Army infantry, attaining the rank of Sergeant (E-5) from 1967–1968. While serving during the Vietnam War, he received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.
-Sam I Am-
Hey Sam, how many generals did you run into when you were in the jungle?
I don't even remember seeing one when I was in the rear.
Good Morning Vietnam! ... I mean Mr.King !
Your humor made my day.
I don't know where them generals were but I respected their service. I never saw one, did you? That was just Rhetorical Mr. King.
I respect the Patreous service to country, but not his support of a failed war policy. I wish he'd come clean like Powell did about selling the Bush/Republican blunder called Iraq War.
Service to my Country? Always! Service to my Government? Only when the Government is correctly representing the people. - - MARK TWAIN -- Sam I Am --
Of course I respect Hagle's service to this country. But there's a difference between a veteran and an actively serving military member. To say that an actively serving military member is "betraying us" by giving his opinion on a matter that is intricately linked to his war duties is akin to saying that he is a traitor while simultaneously serving this country in a time of war--the ultimate slap in the face (or spit in the face as Iraq and Vietnam war veterans have encountered far too many times in this country). To call Hagle "Senator Betrayus" is also very disrespectful, and I condemn Limbaugh for doing it, but it's disrespectful for a reason separate and apart from a denegration of his war duties. That is simply the point I am making. Thank you for reading and thank you for your service to this country.
Interesting Observer-
Thanks for giving Senator Hagel the respect he has earned. Your previous comment about Hagel was way out wrong. The opposite of what you said it true.
I'm proud to have served our country even though my war was also wrong. Wasn't my countries fault, it was the Govt. I was fighting for your freedom to come here and defend whatever you believe in.
When you make your comments I like to say, "Go for it"... It's your right to be wrong or right with the freedom to say it. Here's what you said this time ....
"But there's a difference between a veteran and an actively serving military member." - OBSERVER -
Usually it's the function of the Secretary of State or other Bush cabinet member to sell the Bush Iraq War Policy. Not an active duty participant who is currenly serving his Commander in Chief and thereby following his orders and has the duty to support the Bush War Policies.
Such as when Colin Powell sold the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place. Powell later admitted all those lies that he delivered to enable Bush to get the war he wanted. Patreous has done the same thing, but I doubt if he'll ever come clean as Powell did.
It was shameful of Bush to use and hide behind an active duty general who was ordered to sell the Bush War Policy. The generals report "Opinions of the Surge" were checked at the door. He was hand picked by Bush for having the correct "Opinions".
Also, Veterans from previous wars such as Senator Hagel, who are free to speak independently of a controlling and blundering war president, not only have that right but an outright obligation to speak out against this war.
Hagel or any Veteran independent of presidential orders or pressures would have been much more credible to make that report instead of Patreous.
So its a disengenuous comparison because LIMBAUGH's example ISNT funny and ISNT a play on his last name and Hagel ISNT a four star General though he IS a Senator? Are you kidding me? Was your attempt at a point that Limbaughs was less justifyable in ANY way or that a Senator is less deserving of respect than a four star General?
No, I was simply pointing out the not funny part just to express my disdain for Limbaugh's lack of wit. My point about the disingenuous comparison was that when you have a four star general currently serving his country, putting his life on the line overseas (though I do acknowledge Sam's Computer's point about generals not being in the same line of fire as the rank and file soldiers, I still think that he deserves the benefit of being thought of as having his life on the line until we are presented direct proof otherwise) calling him "betray us" is akin to calling him a "traitor." Limbaugh's calling Hagel "betray us" was a reference to Hagel betraying the Republican party (so thinks Limbaugh) NOT his country. It does not suggest that he is a traitor to this country, as calling Petaeus "betray us" does.
Ok that is a reasonably good argument. It was still basically the same dumb joke so I dont see it as disengenuous but I see your point.
Hagel is a Vietnam vet who actually did put his life on the line. As did Kerry and Cleland and McCain.
All have been smeared by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, and Bush (remember the primaries?). All of these people have had the opportunity to wear the uniform (Okay so Bush defended Texas from Oklahoma) but like Cheney, they had other priorities.
They cheer-lead from the sidelines, hide behind our generals and use our troops to attain some neocon fantasy. Limbaugh et all have shown nothing but disrespect for the military and its time to call them on it.
I feel really bad for the intern who has to listen to this blowhard.
I guess we are all unamerican because we questioned the General but it is fine for the Cons to smear Max Cleland a man who gave his body for his country.
These people are so disgusting.
I'm just so sick of these guys being able to say anything they want, lie blatantly and no one calls them on it. When are the Democrats going to show a little backbone and really take it to these people?
whenb are the american listening audience stop buying the products they peddle to pay for their air time ????
An increasing sentiment Bootsy (love the tag). As to how to go about it Drew Westen's The Political Brain. Shows the nuts and bolts of suceeding by giving it back to the bastids. It's not a new, The Prince, Ethics and honesty do apply and hearts are very important.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I've participated by signing petitions, calling my Congressional Delegation and other's when appropriate, and donated time and money for MoveOn.org. I donated, and reviewed the add before we did!! If there is a organization at the grassroots that is the defination of a Democracy, and Sincerity, it's MoveOn.org! They do not pretend about anything, least of all their intentions to promote a progressive, responsible agenda for our democracy which includes it's restitution!
The Republican Party has been in violation of every oath of office they elected to federal office that has not voted against the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the re-authorization of the spying of Americans, the handmaidens to the contempt of this president for any law that doesn't suit their agenda for consolidation of power!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Commendations for your contribution! I, likewise, contributed to, and previewed the ad. My only regret about the ad is that so many Democrats were afraid to touch the subject matter, to call the liar with the stars a liar, lying on behalf of the evil regime. No matter how glorious his career, no matter how great his service, his lies are still false, and when our policy is formulated based upon those lies, his lies, lies are lies, and liars are liars!
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The add points out that as Baghdad was being looted, and the Baath Party was being disbanded and criminalized, as the Iraq Republican Guard and Army was being told they were disbanded and out of a job, this General told the world in an op-ed article that the occupation was going as planned!
4 years later he is the last General of any consequence that will stand up for this President's ambition for the war to extend well after his term.
What do we know about Gen Petreaus to be sure is that he has ambitions for the White House! If the President wants to hide behind the General that is left to support this disaster, and that General steps up to be that shield, then how can he or the Republicans if at all sincere have anything to say other than their opposing opinion.
A resolution on the Senate floor to condemn a newspaper add from a grassroots political action organization as American Democracy is in shabbles, in debt, shamed & diminished in the world is simply an attempt to change the subject and hide from thier disasterous, treasonous behavior!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Bill Richardson just supported the MoveOn.org ad in his piece today at Huffington Post.
Rebuttal here:http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2007/09/bill-richardson-at-huffpo-when-war-ads.html
NEW INFO FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES PUBLIC EDITOR: September 23, 2007 The Public Editor Betraying Its Own Best Interests By CLARK HOYT
FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.
But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.
On Monday, Sept. 10, the day that Gen. David H. Petraeus came before Congress to warn against a rapid withdrawal of troops, The Times carried a full-page ad attacking his truthfulness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
"On Monday, Sept. 10, the day that Gen. David H. Petraeus came before Congress to warn against a rapid withdrawal of troops" ... ---------------------------------------------------------------
... The General (in fact) Betrayed us because he should have WARNED US against a Rapid Invasion of troops many years before this huge foriegn policy blunder began.
But no, on Bush Orders, he sells the war just like Secretary of State Powell did, but with a new pack of lies. Unlike Powell, Patreous won't come clean with the truth.
-Shameful-
The very idea of Bush, using and hiding behind an active duty general who has broken ranks with most generals and experts that have advised against a military solution.
Wow! If any of you had ACTUALLY paid attention to my post, you would have seen that I called hagel a democrat. But he CLAIMS to be a Republican. THAT'S why he's a traitor to his party. Come on, folks!
You are lying you said he was guilty of treason there is no such thing as treason to the party. We are not as stupid as you are so stop the games.
I am not playing a game. Interestingobserver made the same argument that I did earlier and you had this in response:
Ok that is a reasonably good argument. It was still basically the same dumb joke so I dont see it as disengenuous but I see your point.
Why are you treating me differently? I have said that I didn't make my point the way I meant to. Yes, I meant Hagel was a traitor to the Republican party. Please stop being mean to me.
Did HE call Hagel a TRAITOR did HE say he was guilty of TREASON? No, you did NOT make the same argument IO made. HE also criticised you for your post so dont even try that. IF you are backtracking just SAY DIRECTLY you were WRONG to say he was guilty of treason. But when you say in ONE post he was guilty of treason then in another you only meant he betrayed your PARTY you are LYING and playing games. Saying someone is guilty of TREASON cannot in ANY sense be construed as meaning he betrayed your party.
OK, enough already. I never intended my statement to be taken interpreted that way. I WAS WRONG TO SAY WHAT I SAID! Now please apologize to me for attacking me like you did. Admit that you read too far into what I wrote and took it personally. I NEVER said a word about you, Bushlies, or ANYONE else. You misunderstood my point from the start, and you jumped on me for YOUR misunderstanding.
I didnt misunderstand a THING. You said you thought he was guilty of treason. Now WHAT could change the meaning of that unless it was preceded by you saying I would have to be a churlish dolt to say... I suggest you do not hold your breath or put your next meal on hold awaiting my appology none will be forthcoming. I did NOTHING wrong I will NOT appologize for returning serve to those who come in here at attack us and I didnt misunderstand ANYTHING. One post says he is a democrat it is factually correct to say he is a traitor the next says you think he is guilty of treason. We are not idiots the meaning there is PLAIN
You are a very stubborn, unreasonable individual. You have failed to realize that you mistook what I said as an attack on those who oppose war. You made that connection on your own. I feel sorry for you, but you are wrong. Your apology is accepted.
Feel free to accept a phantom appology I did not make am not morally obligated to make and that will NEVER come. You are lying. There was no misunderstanding. When taken to task you tried to CHANGE your story you said he was a democrat it was factually correct to say he was a traitor THEN said you thought he was guilty of TREASON also saying you thought it more correct to call Hagel "A TRAITOR' than Petreus. NONE of that is about the Party. Stop innsulting our intelligence. We KNOW what you meant, it is clear, lie all you want about it now we are not idiots with a five second memory. You said what you said, own it, stop pretending it is OUR problem. If you want civil discussions start from here and avoid saying things we can reasonably infer mean WE are treasonous.
"chuck hagel is a democrat.
So, to say that Gen. Petreaus is a traitor is wrong. To say that chuck hagel is a traitor is factually correct."
So Hagel is guilty of treason because he is a democrat?? I noticed you spelled it with a "small d" which means that Hagel is committed to democracy. So he is a traitor because he is committed to democracy? I guess in the minds of a Bush shill like yourself, that could make sense.
If you meant he is a traitor because he is a Democrat, that is an equally ludracris assertion. Basically, Bush Lies you're either a committed fascist or just very very stupid (I'm leaning towards the latter). Either way you shouldn't be writing on this forum. I often have heated debates with people here but never have I resorted to calling people "traitors" because they have views that differ from mine. I am baffled that there are people that walk the planet like you, in all honesty.
You DO realize that hagel is a member of the Republican party, right? Please stop calling me stupid. Re-read what I said.
Yes I am well aware he is a Republican. Apparently YOU in your infinite ineptitude are the one who is not.
i would just like to say that i live in nebraska and try to follow the politics here as best i can. i will tell you that i think Sen. Hagel is one of the best representitives i have seen. yes, he is outspoken against the war, yes, he has broken ranks with other republicans to do so. however, if you look at his voting record he has voted with the president on most other issues. what this tells me is that this is a man who stands on princeable and not just the party line. he is not a tratior to his party, he is a voice of reason. just too bad he is retiring
And yes Bush Lies I do understand that I personally insulted you in my last post but quite frankly you have EARNED it by coming on here and writing off the charts nonsense which I sincerely hope you don't believe.
You have REALLY missed my original point.
No I got your point--you think Hagel is a traitor because he tepidly opposes a war that should never have been started---as opposed to Bush who allowed the neocons who control him to act out their messianic fantasies of world domination at the expense of thousands of our soldiers. Yep I got your point alright.
Let's give Bush Lies the benefit of the doubt and assume he was referring to Hagel as a "traitor" with respect to betraying his party. Gosh, doesn't that say something about Bush Lies's view about the Republican party?? He's a traitor for differing from the administration on this irresponsible mess overseas? I remember a time when Republicans stood for fiscal discipline and a RESPSONSIBLE foreign policy. Gosh that time seems so long ago now, doesn't it?
Thank you for your support, sir. I've been trying to explain for HOURS now that I didn't get my point across very effectively. I NEVER attacked anyones views on the war. Hell, I hate this war as much as the next guy. Maybe I don't communicate very well, but these guys misunderstood my statements and started attacking me. Then they accuse me of being uncivil and spreading hate. I see how the right wingers feel now when they come here. These guys are mean.
I dont understand why you keep saying we misunderstood. You said I think Hagel is guilty of TREASON, what part of treason dont YOU understand. HOW is that to be misunderstood? You keep pretending that you really meant he was betraying the party but saying he was guilty of TREASON has nothing to do with that. I dont buy it. You were attacked because what you said could reasonably be seen as saying Hagel was a traitor because he was a Democrat and/or opposed the war. I dont care what your position on the war is what I care about is seeing people called guilty of treason for OPINIONS that are like mine. DO that and you will find a hostile reaction. Stop pretending it is OUR problem if you are SO bad at expressing yourself that by guilty of treason you only meant that he was a bad Republican then it STILL isnt OUR fault for reading your words AS WRITTEN.
I have apologized for what I said, I have admitted that I didn't communicate very well, I have clarified what I meant, and I have retracted my original statement. Why can't you get over this? Where does your hostility come from? I OPPOSE THIS WAR. Do you really think that I would accuse MYSELF of treason? Think rationally for a minute. What more do you want me to say? Or are you just content with being jaded and bitter?
The way I see it you are still trying to blame us. Its like when someone insults one of your friends then appologizes by saying I am sorry if that hurt your feelings or more accuratly in response to what YOU are saying I am sorry if you misinterpreted what I said and THAT hurt your feelings. I am fine that you dont mean what you said but you havent SAID that. You keep saying that WE didnt understand what you said but what you CLAIM you meant cannot possibly be taken from what you actually SAID. I dont feel like letting you be stubborn enough to get away with blaming US for YOUR words. I dont see how it COULD have been a matter of expressing yourself poorly. Hagel is MORE of a traitor than Petreus. What has THAT got to do with being a Republican? Hagel is guilty of treason in what way can THAT be misunderstood. You SAY you have appologized but you never took responsibility for your words you keep pretending the problem is OURS. By the way, you dont have amazing mind reading powers so you dont know if I am bitter or jaded. Leave the mind reading to Kreskin. Confining yourself to what I WRITE makes sense making vague guesses about what kind of person I am is just ridiculous. OK. I accept you were WRONG to say Hagel was guilty of TREASON for whatever reason you said it. I am just saying what you are calling a misunderstanding WASNT OUR FAULT so we were completely within our right to react as we did.
Well you've managed to irritate me. The gloves are still on though. Even on hot subjects. We'll see if you can get it more together. It does happen, to the wonder and joy of all concerned.
I think I heard Mr. L's response something to the effect of:"what did I ever say"...well let's see, he insinuates using um.... words in the English language...words that any mature, reasonable adult would interpret as: Senator Hagel is a traitor, Obama is a terrorist.
Sean Hannity perpetually insinuates that the Clintons are murderers. Bill O'Reilly points his Spin Finger and denies having said words that are exact quotes from his own program. And Anne Coulter's primary contrubution to the national political discourse is to comment on body size of various politicians.
In my opinion the symptoms, noted above, are a clear indication of mental illness (or evidence, perhaps, of the influence of substance abuse) Notwithstanding the efforts of MMFA... why oh why do these nuts face no accountability.
Of course, there is a huge difference, and this also applies to the ridiculous Barbara Boxer and her amendment concerning Sens. Cleland and Kerry. None of the Media Matters for al Qaeda moonbats have served in uniform, so the distinction is lost on them.
Hagel, Cleland, and Hagel are politicans and they can participate in political debates, including defending attacks on them.
Gen. Petraeus is a professional military man currently in uniform. He is not allowed to respond to unfair attacks on his character. That's why the American people see the MoveOn ad as cowardly and vile. Here we had a group of pimply-faced wimps attacking a four-star general whose only sin was telling the truth.
Hi! A NOTICE TO ALL ...
That is IT. I've had enough. My highest regards to wonderful posters who come here to make their comments. I shall continue to engage Conservatives and all other respectable comments here worthy of a response.
But a person who comes here with hatred and ugly behavior combined with false information and cruel name calling are hereby removed from my list.
I will just say (Take Your Bull Corn and Get Outta Town!) OR (Sorry No Reply Deserved) OR ... I'll just let their garbage stand on its own lack of credibility. That will speak louder than a reply from anyone.
-Sam I Am-
Another moron from the I hate Americans and want to get as many of them killed as possible wing of stupidity heard from. Your ignorance is already legendary Kev, you dont have to try so hard to prove how stupid you are. Now go play nice with the other special children
Solon, after resting on our exchange from last night, I have decided to be the Solon watchdog of this site. Your hostility and insulting nature are disruptive to this site. You constantly violate the terms of use by attacking other posters personally and being intolerant of people with differing opinions. KNOW THIS: Whenever you type an insult, whenever you attack someone's views with hostility, whenever you descend to spewing hate, I will be here to report your behavior. And you will be gone.
Feel free. I notice in your pettyness to go after me because I showed you up last night you are taking ME to task for insulting Kevin but apparantly missed Kevin calling US Media Matters for al Queda. So I guess you mean to say its FINE for conservatives to insult us but how DARE we insult THEM. Just like you last night. I have no problem with you going on some vendetta against me, report me to MMFA every post. I have been here for years posting in just this manner so TRY report away, good luck with that. The thing is I dont START the insults I just return serve which YOU are too blinded to see. And these insults arent meant to be hurtful or indeed taken seriously. They make a POINT. Kevin has his faults, I think he is VERY brainwashed but he isnt a moron, he is actually a fairly bright guy. The POINT is that such ad hominem insults are worthless. So he uses the stereotype propaganda from the right. I counter with the stereotype of cons from the left. Perhaps he wont be so petty and eventually see that its just so EASY and worthless to argue this way and stop insulting US rather than take it personally.
Of course, they more likely got it from Keith Olbermann, who had the Betrayus line all over his program and announced it in his opening monologue on 8/16, rather than some second long throw away line from a caller on Limbaugh's show who wasn't even on the air, and was in reference to Hagel, not Petraeus.
Link to msnbc transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20319064/
Media Matters(very little) has once again demostrated how very very little it actually matters.
Rush was stating that a republican had 'betrayed' the values of conservatism. Bowelmoveon.org said that a general was betraying his country.
And just look at the love shown by the loonie left when someone leaves the reservation.
http://www.democrats.com/node/8865
Media Matters very little, if at all.
Sure ProudMoron, we have heard it all before. Your schtick is as dumb this time as it was last time and most likely will be next time. The point here is IT IS THE SAME DUMB JOKE. Even LESS clever from Limbuagh since it didnt comport with his name. THIS is what MMFA does point out just this kind of hypocrisy from the right in the media. There might be someone somewhere that cares whether or not you like it but I couldnt imagine why they would
So-wrong solon,
Where is the hypocracy...it's on the left. Look at the vitriol spewed against a recent vice-presidential candidate for the party of donkeys!
PS Glad to see your appreciation of satire has elevated!
Well Proud Moron, it is no suprise you see hypocrisy on the left. In your simpleminded way you ONLY see imagined wrongs from the left. So what if Lieberman is attacked how is THAT hypocrisy. Picking Lieberman is why I LEFT the Democratic Party. So how would it be hypocrisy for us to criticise him I dont think the word means what you think it means. Even if he were a standard bearer for progressive politics that doesnt put him above criticism from the left. WE arent the party of no higher brain function and mindless hero worship. People arent just one thing. Sometimes the best people can be wrong. YOU however are totally predictable
Saloon,
Then why does MMvl complain that Rush used the term to describe a betrayal of political values? You evidently justify your feelings about Liberman in the same fashion.
Complaining about political issues is one thing, BM.org claimed to identify Petraeus as one who betrayed his country. Why defend that MMvl?
Proud Moron. They didnt. YOu need a erading comprehension refresher course. They are pointing out the hypocrisy of the press to attack Moveon while ignoring as morons like you do Limbaugh doing the SAME THING. Moronocons dont get to frame what OTHER people say as IF their take is the reality.
Solong,
Cliff note version of article:
Rush = Sen. Hagel betrayal of political belief.
BM.org = General Petraeus betrayal of country.
Democrat.com = Liberman & betrayal of political belief.
Hillary Clinton/BM.org/Solon = 'willing suspension of disbelief'
Proud Moron. I see you are as bad at math as you are at reading comprehension.
Moveon AND Limbuagh use betrayus joke. Media and proudmorons ONLY take issue with Moveon = hypocrisy.
Lieberman not ONLY supports war but ATTACKS war opponents who are his BASE loses support and is criticised back= politics as usual. The chance of Proudmoron with his obsession with black/white Manichean thinking having the ability to understand anything close to a nuance=0
Salon,
So we should consider what BM.org did as just a joke?
Rush has a derogatory pet name for everyone he attacks. Compared to him, Ann Colter, Michale Savage and Glenn Beck Move on.org is just a a young upstart when it comes to political slander.
So true. When they begin calling Jenna and Barb the White House dogs the right needs to get back to us.
Did anyone else notice the president of Iran, Mookie Hiamamadman, spoke from a script that sounded it was provided by the democrat party for his 60 Minutes interview?
I recently saw an ad that stated VOTE DEMOCRAT BECAUSE DEMOCRAT STANDS FOR DEMOCRACY.
DON'T VOTE GOP BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD..