In five articles, LA Times noted GOP MoveOn amendment, but not Boxer amendment or GOP inconsistency
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times devoted a full article to the Senate's passage of a nonbinding amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn that "repudiate[s]" MoveOn.org's September 10 advertisement criticizing Gen. David Petraeus and mentioned Cornyn's amendment in four separate articles. However, in none of the five articles did the Times report that Sen. Barbara Boxer offered an amendment to "strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces," which cited, in addition to the MoveOn ad, Republican-backed attacks against the military service of Sen. John Kerry and former Sen. Max Cleland.
On September 20, the Senate passed a nonbinding amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), which, in the words of that amendment, "repudiate[s] the unwarranted personal attack on General [David] Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org" -- referring to MoveOn's advertisement in the September 10 New York Times titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- and "condemn[s] any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces." The Los Angeles Times subsequently devoted a full article to the amendment's passage and mentioned it in four separate articles. However, in none of the five articles did the Times report that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered an amendment to "strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." In addition to citing the MoveOn ad, Boxer's amendment also cited Republican-backed attacks against the military service of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). The articles also did not mention that 46 Republicans, all of whom voted for the Cornyn amendment, voted against the Boxer amendment -- thus refusing to support legislation criticizing attacks on Democrats as well as on Petraeus.
Boxer's amendment was voted on just prior to the Cornyn amendment on September 20, and received 50 votes, but fell short of the 60-vote threshold both parties had agreed to. Cornyn's passed by a 72-25 margin.
While the Times highlighted, in its coverage of the Cornyn amendment, several senators who voted against the Cornyn amendment, including Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Chris Dodd (D-CT), John F. Kerry (D-MA), and Boxer herself, as well as noting that Barack Obama (D-IL) did not vote on the amendment, it did not mention the Boxer amendment. Only Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel (NE) and Arlen Specter (PA) voted for the Boxer amendment. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against both amendments.
For example, a September 21 Times article - headlined "Senate Squares Off with MoveOn" -- reported that "two Republican senators running for president -- Sam Brownback of Kansas and John McCain of Arizona -- voted for" the Cornyn amendment and that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said before the vote on the Cornyn amendment: "The [MoveOn] ad was, by any standard, abhorrent. ... It accused a four-star general who has the trust and respect of 160,000 men and women in Iraq of betraying that mission and those troops, of lying to them and to us. Who would have ever expected anybody to go after a general in the field at a time of war, launch a smear campaign against a man we've entrusted with our mission in Iraq?" The Times further reported that several Democrats voted against the Cornyn amendment - including Boxer. However, the article, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, made no mention of Boxer's amendment, or the fact that Brownback, McCain, and McConnell voted against it.
Additionally, a September 24 Times article reported: "Clinton also would not directly criticize the liberal group MoveOn.org for its recent full-page ad in the New York Times referring to Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, as 'General Betray Us.' Republicans condemned the ad, and [President] Bush said Democrats were afraid to criticize the group because of its liberal clout. 'I don't condone attacks by anyone on the patriotism and service of our military,' Clinton said on CNN's 'Late Edition.' 'But let's be clear here. This debate should not be about an ad. This debate should be about the president's failed policies.' " Again, the Times failed to mention Boxer's alternative amendment and did not report that Clinton voted for it -- this despite the fact that Clinton highlighted her support of the Boxer amendment during the CNN interview the Times referenced. From the September 23 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:
CLINTON: Well, I thought it was pretty sorry when his [Bush's] campaign attacked Senator Kerry's record of service, and I thought it was pretty sorry when the Republicans attacked Senator Cleland. I don't condone attacks by anyone on the patriotism and service of our military. I am an admirer of General Petraeus, as I've said on numerous occasions. I don't condone it, and I joined in voting for a resolution that condemned such attacks.
But let's be clear here: This debate should not be about an ad. This debate should be about the president's failed policies. The Republicans are very good at coming up with political strategies, but unfortunately, they don't seem to have a very adequate grasp of military or geopolitical strategies that will forward America's standing, position, values, and interests in the world.
So I think that we ought to stay focused on what's important -- the war in Iraq -- and not allow this debate to go off track. And I look forward to continuing to debate what we should be doing in Iraq, and I would invite the Republicans to join in that debate.
WOLF BLITZER (host): But quickly, do you want to disassociate yourself from that MoveOn.org ad?
CLINTON: I have voted against it. I mean, I've voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, which condemned that attack, and also condemned the attacks on Senator Cleland and Senator Kerry. I don't condone it. I voted to condemn it.
But again, I would underscore -- let's be clear what's going on here. This is an effort to focus on an ad that I condemned and don't condone in order to avoid having to deal with the tough questions about our policy in Iraq.
The policy has failed. The president is able to hang on to it because he has enough Republican support. It's going to be an issue in the '08 election, and I hope that we will be electing more Democrats, because that is the way to really change direction in our country.
Other Times coverage of the Cornyn amendment that failed to mention the Boxer amendment includes:
The September 22 article headlined "Democrats' bill on troops fails in Senate":
Most Democrats joined with Republicans on Thursday for a resolution condemning an ad in the New York Times by the antiwar group MoveOn.org that referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us." The Senate vote was 72 to 25.
The September 21 article headlined "Democrats fail to gain ground on Iraq":
The Democratic leaders remain tied to an antiwar movement that repulses many moderate Republicans, lawmakers who most recently recoiled at the newspaper ad by MoveOn.org attacking Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, ahead of his congressional testimony last week.
The September 21 article headlined "MoveOn ad shakes some up":
On Thursday, President Bush got involved, calling MoveOn's ad against Petraeus "disgusting." Also, the U.S. Senate voted 72 to 25 to condemn the "personal attacks on the honor and integrity" of Petraeus. Those voting against the measure included Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, John F. Kerry and Chris Dodd. (Barack Obama was recorded as not voting.)
For the Senate to be discussing an ad in the NY Times, or old campaign wounds inflicted at candidates, is just ridiculous. If I was a Senator I would have voted against any and all of them just out of principle, instead of dignifying this partisan dog and pony grandstanding, and get back to dealing with real issues and problems.
Vote them all out....
For the Senate to be discussing an ad in the NY Times, or old campaign wounds inflicted at candidates, is just ridiculous.
I agree 100% Tommy.
MoveOn.org's ad was their own opinion & may I add a clever play on Gen. Petraeus's name. The Democrats shouldn't have to apologize for or condemn an outside groups opinions. Just the same as I didn't expect Republican's to apologize for or condemn the Swiftboaters.
None of this belongs as part of Senate business.
Vote them all out....
Great idea. I'll second that!
I'm inclined to agree. Too bad we don't have a viable third party in this country. I'm fairly disgusted with both parties, though I still lean to the port side on most matters.
As for the Betray-Us pun, I've seen a couple of articles that say he was given this nickname by former colleagues long before the ad came out.
I think this is clearly a case of the Right Wing spin machine manufacturing outrage, and a lot of Democrats have fallen for it...as well as most of the MSM.
Interesting. Republicans start a BS vote against a political ad. Concerning this issue, Democrats generally agree with Republicans, except they want assurances that it works both ways, in order to defend themselves against the many Republican hate ads.
Your solution? Vote them all out.
If you want your Senators wasting time and money so ridiculously on some ad, or trying to inject themselves into past political ads just to make some point, then that is your business. I prefer they do what they were elected to do, and this ain't it.
Gee, me too. However, Democrats wouldn't have had to have gone there if they hadn't started it in the first place.
So Democrats stand up and say they aren't going to waste precious time giving any attention to an ad in some newspaper by anyone. If you, the Republicans or anyone, doesn't like it, tough. We have work to do. Done.
They would have alot more respect by taking that road, at least from me.
Tommy this is one instance when we agree. The Democrats could have taken that tack and it would have made the whole stunt backfire on the GOP. This really was poorly played by them.
I'm not with you on suggesting they somehow share equal blame for this though. They may have taken the bait but they weren't the ones who started the grandstanding. It was a missed opportunity (as usual) for them to call the GOP out for their cheap tricks of distraction.
I never said they were equal to blame, I could care less what the blame percentage is - it is a thorough waste of time and should have been pointed out as such by one of these ninny politicians with a backbone.
It was pointed out as such actually. When Obama refused to vote on the Cornyn resolution he called it a "Stunt designed only to score cheap political points." Personally I found this to be a refreshingly candid and brave statement even if the press has mostly decided to ignore it. If he were the party's leader I believe we would have seen this whole story go down in a very different way.
Sorry Tommy, but I can't let you get away with that. There IS a % that's to blame, and they are Republicans who started this crap to begin with. But, for some reason, you (and Jeter) want to throw them all out.
Democrats were only defending themselves against what would certainly be a smear by 'not voting to condemn such an atrocious ad.' So here's an idea-- let's throw the only the rotten ones out, keep the innocent ones in, THEN get back to work.
The Republicans are the ones guilty of this rediculous distraction. Get rid of them.
I take Tommy and Jeter's side, I want all the spineless bums out too. Give me a representative with brass balls and true grit and the decency to use them both with honor any day.
Brass Balls and True Grit? Wasn't that the movie where John Wayne teamed up with a young Clint Eastwood? Worst buddy flick ever.
Doh! You just unveiled the sequel. Keep it on the low, sundawg...
Brass balls are a very popular musical instrument at the traditional bris.
True grit is what it takes to watch one.
I have to say I own "true grit" on DVD. Along with the cowboys. And my collection of 50+ war movies of all times, #1 being "Too late the hero" closely followed by "The Devil's Brigade". "Battleline" is my obscure fave.
What era are those movies? I'm not familiar with them.
Oh dawg, they span the late 40's to the late 60's. Cliff Robertson appeared in most of them. Battleline had Boyd Johnson (I might have the name wrong cause I'm drinking in a bar right now!). But it also had a veeeeery young Ricardo Montalban in it, about the battle of the bulge (in black & white). I'm a huge war movie fan, collect every one no matter how obscure!
It's wild to think of how quickly some of those were coming out after the war. I watched tons of those as a kid and it always seemed like they were portraying something that was ancient history. I also liked reading books like Escape From Colditz and other first-hand accounts from veterans.
Funny thing about a kid's perspective is that WW2 seems more recent to me now as an adult than it did to me then when it was only 30 years in the past. I mean, Vietnam is now more distant than that. I have to remember stuff like that when I'm talking to people 20 years younger than I am who are already going out to vote. It seems helpful to try to understand the perspectives of different generations. Too bad it is the wars that define our eras so much.
Well I'm babbling and by coincidence I've been Tivoing Ken Burns' The War. So I'm going to go watch that. Cheers to you in the bar.
Instead of voting them out, wouldn't it be better to just get involved in the other facets of our democratic process, such as making your voice heard.
Maybe any poster who is upset with this (as am I) should take the day off from posting on mmfa and write their representatives (and it doesn't matter whether you voted for them or not).
Sure, they probably don't care about what you have to say, but let me put it this way: does posting on the media matters site really accomplish anything?
I'll actually, for once, take my own advice and write my senators about this waste of time and money.
Happy Thoughts,
OH
It's not all of them that are a problem, however. It's the Republicans who caused this to be an issue. We do need to vote out people who would raise issues like this.
For you to suggest that Democrats could vote against an amendment like this without consequence is to ignore reality. I think most of our Senators are bright men and they recognize political reality, and at least the Democrats also recognize that they shouldn't take advice from you.
Once issues get raised, they get ignored at politician's peril. Ignoring the issues raised by the Republican amendment would have been a stupid political move by the Democrats. They could have shown how stupid it was for the Republicans to raise this issue, or they could have submitted a counter proposal, which is what they did.
If a news source fails to cover the Boxer amendment when they cover the Republican amendment multiple times, then they're not doing their job. MMFA should point that out, like they did.
Monkey"Sue", or Maple"Sue", or whatever screenname you're going by at the moment, .......I have no interest in politicians and their calculations to stay in office. I respect principled leaders who do the right thing, which would be to ignore silliness such as this bill/amendment/whatever it is.
Tommy
Is Sue back again?I do not believe the Senate should have wasted a second discussing this, it was a waste of time with everything going on in the world. Shame on us all for allowing this.
Read Mapletootie, read Monkeyman......Sue? Yep.
Pointing out worthless drivel is a productive instrument in an attempt to eradicate it.
I'm wondering if the LA Times article mentioned why Barak Obama didn't vote on the Cornyn resolution? I mean it's not like he was just out to the bathroom or something. Does anyone know if that getting ink anywhere?
Sundog, I have seen Obama portrayed as afraid to publicly take a stand against a "powerful radical liberal left wing" organization. Personally, I think every Democratic Senator should have not bothered to vote at all. That would at least have forced MSM to spend more time interviewing them and they could let the public see this "vote" for exactly what it was, a publicity stunt.
Exactly Pearlene, I think this was more of an opportunity for Democrats than for Republicans. The public by and large would have no patience for this grandstanding stunt if they had a handle on what it was actually about. Why should we expect the lame media outlets to explain it for them? Democrats could have. That's what good leaders are supposed to do. Obama seemed like the only Senator who understood what was going on here and how it should be dealt with. I'm more in that guys corner for the nomination every day.
It would be an oppertunity for Democrats, if Republicans weren't in control the media.
Sure, I'd love to see them put them drop the hammer. But, when they do the media paints them as playing politics, and obstructionists. Not to mention the crap repeated by right wing hate/talk, and Fox "News."
The point I was making earlier is that Tommy and Jeter are offended by Republican's whining about a political ad, but they again won't require Republicans to take responsibility for this crap. They lump Democrats in there as well.
It's as if they are saying "You know that Republicans are a bunch of F--ups, how come Democrats don't stop them?"
No doubt about it Rick, the righties do this all the time. Remember, they are irony impaired after all. How else could you sell the idea in 04 that since Kerry supposedly didn't have a good enough solution to the mess Bush created in Iraq you should vote for Bush? This worked for people. Made lots of sense.
It's the party of low standards for themselves.When in panic mode, the GOPsters can always accuse others of sinking to their level.
HBL, great link, to which I reply: BINGO!
This is *BAD BEHAVIOR*. Arguments about whose fault it is or who started it is for ten-year-olds. We're paying them how much per year, to politically posture and pass *non-binding* resolutions?
To argue that a group of citizens publishing a criticism of a military leader's conduct of the war impunes his honor and that of all service men and women is pure hyperbole; to argue that the US Senate, in passing a non-binding resolution, is the heavy hand of government trying to stifle free speech, is more hyperbole.
Hillary was wrong. We don't need to elect more Democrats, we need new parties!
Would these new parties not have any politicians in them?