LA Times falsely suggested inconsistency in Clinton denunciation of Swift Boat ads and vote on MoveOn legislation
SUMMARY: A Los Angeles Times editorial asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "savaged President Bush in 2004 over his failure to condemn the Swift boat ads, yet the Democratic presidential front-runner voted 'no' on the Senate's condemnation of MoveOn." However, Clinton voted in favor of an amendment proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer that cited MoveOn's advertisement as "an unwarranted personal attack on General [David] Petraeus," as well as criticizing the Swift Boat ads attacking Sen. John Kerry and Republican-backed ads attacking former Sen. Max Cleland.
An October 1 Los Angeles Times editorial discussing the "condemnation from both houses of Congress" of MoveOn.org's September 10 ad in The New York Times, titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "savaged President Bush in 2004 over his failure to condemn the Swift boat ads, yet the Democratic presidential front-runner voted 'no' on the Senate's condemnation of MoveOn." The editorial later stated: "The message here is that sleazy political ads are OK as long as they're on your side, but otherwise they're unacceptable." In fact, Clinton voted for an amendment denouncing both the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads and the MoveOn.org ad. As Media Matters for America has noted, Clinton voted in favor of an amendment (pages S11864-S11865) proposed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to "strongly condemn 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." Boxer's amendment cited MoveOn's advertisement as "an unwarranted personal attack on General [David] Petraeus," as well as criticizing the Swift Boat ads attacking then Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and Republican-backed ads attacking former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA).
Even while falsely suggesting inconsistency in Clinton's positions on the ads, the editorial, which was headlined "Congress takes on MoveOn" and subheadlined "Lawmakers have more important things to do than condemn ads," asserted that rather than "wasting time" on amendments condemning MoveOn.org, lawmakers should work on "solving the nation's healthcare crisis or doing something to fight global warming."
As Media Matters has previously documented, the Los Angeles Times published several articles that noted the September 20 Senate passage of a nonbinding amendment sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), which "repudiate[s] the unwarranted personal attack on General [David] Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org," while not once mentioning the Boxer amendment.
From the October 1 Los Angeles Times editorial:
MoveOn.org's juvenile attack on Gen. David H. Petraeus in a full-page ad in the New York Times on Sept. 10 might have merited a trip to the principal's office, or at least a stern rebuke from some of the liberal activist group's more grown-up multimillionaire donors. But an official condemnation from both houses of Congress?
Oddly, Congress didn't seem eager to intervene after a far more egregious and consequential low blow directed at a military man by a political activist group: the infamous "Swift boat" ads attacking Democratic Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign. Many politicians criticized the ads, which made unsubstantiated allegations that besmirched Kerry's Vietnam War record, but there were no congressional denunciations. On Wednesday, the House condemned MoveOn's Petraeus ad by a 341-79 vote, a week after the Senate did the same by a vote of 72 to 25.
Liberals will be quick to seize on this as evidence of a double standard, but it isn't that simple. So-called 527 groups -- named after the section of the tax code that governs them -- such as MoveOn or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were invented by Democrats to avoid campaign donation restrictions. Very few leaders on either side of the aisle have been consistent about the mud-fest that has resulted. Sen. Hillary Clinton, for example, savaged President Bush in 2004 over his failure to condemn the Swift boat ads, yet the Democratic presidential front-runner voted "no" on the Senate's condemnation of MoveOn. Bush, meanwhile, seemed to have forgotten his reluctance to denounce the Swift boat group when he criticized Democrats for not condemning the Petraeus ad.
The message here is that sleazy political ads are OK as long as they're on your side, but otherwise they're unacceptable. We've got a different message for Congress: Instead of wasting time on this kind of meaningless political theater, how about solving the nation's healthcare crisis or doing something to fight global warming?
Waaaah! Why should republicans denounce limbaugh when Hillary didn't treat moveon the same way she treated swift boaters? Waaaah!
Maybe because she didn't introduce a resolution to the senate denouncing them? Republicans sure are the hipocrites this year...
Hey did you see footage of Bill O'Reilly's camera crew stalking Olbermann?
Oh crap. It's fake. that would have been cool if it was real though.
Ya didn't link so we could see it? Bad, bad mr' t!
You people, Media Matters are sic!
Another little wrinkle here: it's perfectly ok (and indeed commendable) to criticize a military leader if they're doing something really wrong. What's wrong is when you lie about their service.
So, the Swift Boat ads were blatant lies--that really should be condemned. The Betray Us ad was oversimplified (but in my opinion no more so than most political advertisements and media coverage, and probably less misleading), but they were making a very pertinent point about Petraeus's credibility based on his previous statements, and they provided reputable sources for each claim they made.
Well said.
I'm sure everyone here has noticed that no one, not ONE SINGLE person has managed to refute any of the factual complaints in the MoveOn Petraeus ad.
Everybody just knee-jerked at the "Betray Us" thing and ignored the rest.
It's a typical right-wingnut response really. Harp on and on about a tiny bit of gristle, so the rest of the meat is forgotten.
The SwiftVet opinions about John Kerry were never disproven, although the surrounding media storm was rediculous. To John Kerry's credit, after the election he admitted that his "Christmas in Cambodia" was a lie, a lie in statements to congress as an elected official.
Do you think any of them have read past the headline? The information explained everything, plainly and simply. I still can't believe the focus is not on the issue that was posted in the advert. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but how many weeks has this been an item?
I think MoveOn's plan was to have a compelling headline that would make people notice the facts presented in the ad.
Instead, the compelling headline is ALL the right-wing noise machine is concerned with and drowned out any discussion of the FACTS.
I sent MoveOn and email with a donation, asking them to run the ad again, but with a different headline.