Fred Barnes: "MoveOn.org -- which hates the war, hates the military, hates America -- endorsed Obama"
SUMMARY: Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes stated on Fox News' The Beltway Boys that "MoveOn.org -- which hates the war, hates the military, hates America -- endorsed [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL]." Media Matters for America has documented numerous media attacks on MoveOn.org.
On the February 2 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, co-host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes stated that "MoveOn.org -- which hates the war, hates the military, hates America -- endorsed [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL]." Barnes has previously stated that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2006 letter to President Bush "reads ... [like] some left-wing document," adding that "maybe MoveOn.org will want to run text or something."
Media Matters for America has documented numerous other media attacks on MoveOn.org, including CNN host Campbell Brown's description of the group as "American insurgents" and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's declaration that someone donating money to MoveOn might as well "give to the Nazi Party."
From the February 2 edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:
MORTON M. KONDRACKE (co-host): And I think one thing that was encouraging, actually, about her performance, and that was on the issue of Iraq. One, she said -- and Obama did, too -- that she's not pulling out right away. She hopes to get the troops out within a year, but she's not going to precipitously pull them out. And she said that she believes in coercive diplomacy. That is, putting the adversary on the defensive using even the threat of military force. Watch this.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY) [video clip]: I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.
KONDRACKE: Yeah, well, look -- so, I think, you know, I think she is, you know, not, she's not -- she didn't get the endorsement of MoveOn.org. I think that's a good sign.
BARNES: Yeah, MoveOn.org -- which hates the war, hates the military, hates America -- endorsed Obama. But you're entirely wrong about Hillary Clinton, Mort.
I could say you're a racist nazi, and that would be my opinion. Now, you might expect me to have some sort of reasonable basis for making such a severe comment, right?
Then you would get the point.
I could say you're a racist nazi, and that would be my opinion. Now, you might expect me to have some sort of reasonable basis for making such a severe comment, right?
Then you would get the point.
Say it all you want. It would be entirely baseless and circular even to address it. People misrepresent facts. If Barnes said moveon hates America because that's what's posted on it's site, then surely he's making a factual allegation. But his statements above aren't much worth an uproar because they can be proved neither right or wrong. He's a rightwinger who hates moveon, not exactly breaking news.
I could make the case that Neocons (I include Barnes in this) are interested in personal gain at the expense of America which makes them the America haters.
This comment is similar to Barnes, and standing alone can be proved neither right nor wrong. Therefore it's not much worth responding to, except for the provacative language of "I could make the case . . ." . That's where it's distinguishable from Barnes' statement. His clearly was an offhand opinion, whereas you might be on the verge of divulging facts which could be disputed. Without that qualifier, it's just a platitude
I was gonna argue that the war in Iraq was not necessary, based on lies, has put America and the world in more danger and that it was done for black gold. Could I call the Neocons America haters if I expanded on this.
You can call them whatever you please. As the clever folks have reminded me on occasion, your statement isn't worth much without facts. How can a neocon dispute what you say without detailing the lies to which you reference? Absent that, it's just your baseless opinion, to which you're entirely welcome
based on lies:
You can find some information here, here, here and here.
You're not a patriot. You're a sissy with a sticker on his car.
By your incredibly specious logic. If I needed money I would be justified in robbing a bank and shooting people to get it, and yet for some reason we put people in PRISON for doing that. What a hopeless lack of decency your post shows.
Buf:
You advocate invading another country for something we "need" then? Do you apply that logic to other countries that "need" resources we have? Do you support the use of alterntative sources of energy?
"It would be entirely baseless and circular even to address it."
And so it's baseless for Barnes to say Moveon hates America. It is not reasonable. It's a smear.
"People misrepresent facts. If Barnes said moveon hates America because that's what's posted on it's site, then surely he's making a factual allegation. But his statements above aren't much worth an uproar because they can be proved neither right or wrong."
So I guess if Moveon.org took out a full-page ad saying that your favorite presidential candidate wants Al Queda to win, nobody would care because it can't be proven one way or the other.
Whether he hates them or not is irrelevant. I hate MRC and LGF without making baseless slander about them.
So I guess if Moveon.org took out a full-page ad saying that your favorite presidential candidate wants Al Queda to win, nobody would care because it can't be proven one way or the other.
It would be their unsupported opinion, nothing more. Standing alone I'd know that it wouldn't be taken seriously, and if that's all they had then nobody would find it very convincing and it would be a collossal waste of money on their part.
In that regard, I'm thinking of the Petraus add, which kind of illustrates my point. In light of Petreaus' commentary before he even was in charge of the surge, Moveon actually had an argument that his report would be tilted to corroroborate his previously published prediction. Accordingly, moveon defended that add with a factual basis, and inferences from those fact, based on the General's comments. In that case you can debate the issue, and argue that Moveon's assertions are crazy and that the General's comments didn't influence his report . . . There's something substantive.
So you believe that questioning someone's patriotism without any basis is acceptable? Seriously?
No. that's what moveon said in defense of their ad. Thus you could discredit them, and in so many ways show that their conclusion does not follow from their facts.
My bad. No I don't think it's right. Barnes' opinions were w/o substance. But it's not a misrepresentation for him to express his subjective opinions about moveon.
Is it a misrepresentation of his own opinion? Who knows? Who cares?
It's slanderous and baseless. "America-haters favor Obama". By contrast, consider if the KKK endorsed Romney (just as a somewhat random example). Someone could say that a racist organization endorsed him. It's still subjective, but it's very easy to provide evidence to show how the KKK is racist. And you would then expect Romney to disavow the endorsement.
But here, there's no basis for the "hate America" description, as far as I see. It sounds like Obama should be ashamed and discard the endorsement, while there seems to be no actual reason to do so.
Whether you personally take it seriously or not, it warps the dialogue, don't you think?
THOMP:
You say "people misrepresent facts".
That is the mission of this site. Yet you seem baffled when the site gives examples of people misrepresenting facts, specifically "CONSERVATIVES" promoting MISINFORMATION in the MEDIA, where they have a voice that SHOULD confine them to some minimal responsibility to ethics and accuracy.
Individually, you may be correct that these instances are "no big deal" and not worth noting. But there is a constant deluge of such misinformation in the MEDIA presented by rightwingers, and they are no longer getting away with it.
Their words are taken down, and their LIES examined and exposed.
They don't LIKE it, YOU don't like it, but we fans of MMFA LOVE it! FINALLY, accountability. Now if we could just get some on Dubya ...
Their words are taken down, and their LIES examined and exposed.
In this case, where's the lie. I'm no lawyer, but if moveon were a private citizen, could any slander or libel charges be brought? There's simply no provable media misrepresentation here. When KO says someone is the worst person in the world, is it worth arguing with him, literally, that the person is not the worst person in the world?
That's ridiculous. "Worst person in the world" is clearly not supposed to be taken literally. Where is that dynamic in "hating America", which is certainly possible for any number of people to do? What in that phrase indicates exaggeration, and what on earth does he consider fair grounds to make that exaggeration anyway?
Okay, just say Al Franken says BO is the worst thing to happen in American media (I'm being hypothetical, but he probably has). He very well could mean that literally, but where's the misrepresentation in his opinion? You can't show that is opinion is based on erroneous facts (pretending you'd like to)
In any event, that's not as serious a matter as questioning someone's patriotism...and slandering Obama by association. Would you disagree?
The first part's your opinion, which can be proven neither right nor wrong. But I don't disagree that Obama should be treated as though moveon's views are a reflection of his own. Anyhow, off to watch the super bowl . . .
It's Media Matters' opinion that Barnes is misinforming. Theirs is at least as valid as Barnes'.
To echo some of the MM disciples, isn't MM is supposed to deal with facts? Now what, you're gonna tell me that a commentator misrepresents his own opinion. Barnes thinks moveon hates America. Prove that statement wrong genius
isn't MM is supposed to deal with facts?
Yes, and the facts are that Barnes said that MoveOn "hates America and the military". It's also factual that certain parts of the media have attacked MoveOn, just as MM says.
Nowhere in this item does Media Matters make any judgment of Barnes' character or motives. They could use Barnes' own tactics and say Barnes hates MoveOn. Instead, they simply present the facts of Barnes' own words.
Which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for Barnes.
It can be inferred that MM's opinion is that Barnes statement is misinformation. Which, unless you agree with Barnes' opinion of MoveOn (as you do), it clearly is.
It can be inferred that MM's opinion is that Barnes statement is misinformation. Which, unless you agree with Barnes' opinion of MoveOn (as you do), it clearly is.
Okay, so MM disproves Barnes' opinion with it's own unprovable opinion. I know that I'm being tedious, and admit that MM often does impressive work correcting people's facts, but I don't see it in this case.
"[Media Matters'] unprovable opinion"
Not provable to you and Barnes, you mean.
I feel absolutely certain that Media Matters, or even most of the people on this forum, could do diligent work and make a very thorough case to show that MoveOn.org doesn't "hate America" or the military.
But realistically, Barnes, and you, want to and need to believe they do hate America, and mountains of evidence couldn't please either one of you.
Convenient that Barnes isn't required by you to do anything.
"And you know that I hate moveon because . . .? My impression is that there's only one of us doin some hating here, and it's not me."
Why are your feathers all ruffled? It was just an opinion. It can't be proven right or wrong. as far as I can see.
Now I'm getting it? I think now you see how it feels to be misrepresented, for someone to attribute something to you unfairly.
And of course you're going to say you don't hate moveon. What does that prove? What else would we expect from a hater like you?
"And you know that I hate moveon because . . .?"
I didn't say you hate MoveOn. Keep the record straight.
I said more than once that you agree with Barnes, that MoveOn hates America and the military. You haven't denied it that I can see.
I did make the point (which, evidently, you can't grasp) that Media Matters could just as flippantly do what Barnes did: claim that Barnes hates MoveOn. But they didn't. Instead they simply printed the facts of what Barnes said.
you could bring a suit, but not win. you can't base a defamation suit on statement of an opinion, only on facts. if you said of george soros that he had a venereal disease, he could win, as that is automatic defamation.
Find one liberal commentator on any cable news station who calls any conservative organization "America hating." Just one.
Maybe this comment does not need to be addressed, but it certainly does if there is still a belief that the media is liberal.
And there's the tell that signals the "concern troll".
"just like those fat lades in pink demonstrating"
This guy above is easy to dislike, but really deserves pity, I think, more than anything. His small world is clearly centered around hating __insert group here__ (in the latest example above, "fat lades (sic)"), and he's proud of the hate, too, purposely seeks out folks who'll be offended (us), rather than those who might be of a like mind, and wallows in the negative reaction it generates.
Any psychologists out here who know what that's all about?
Buf:
Do you honestly equate protesting against foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq with hating America? If so, why do you think that it is OK for you to criticize Carter's foreign policy? I think you need to check your medication.
"I'd much prefer to give them what they deserve. "
Why are you playing with a keyboard then? Too scared to confront them in person?
actually, I think they are just a bunch of fat lonely ugly women in search of some companionship.
Such a gentlemanly, well thought out statement. I'm so impressed. Maybe you and Bill Kristol could get togther, you know being peas of a pod and all.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I served honorably as did many of the people of MoveOn.org. I think hearing a man on our public airways with the power of the pulpit speak to millions of registered voters, motivated, and focused on a progressive agenda like MoveOn.org is merely fueling the movement.
So Fred, while your are slowly degenerating into obscurity, try not to make the bombastic remarks, instead stick to the details, and slowly move away from the rhetoric as we may be able to get you out of this looking less like a pathetic nasty old drunk.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Surely and simply, if it were true that Moveon.org hated America as Mr. Barnes espouses here, and that they also hate the military, he should be able to go onto their website, pull down some good examples of what Moveon.org has posted on their website, and actually show us what is so America hating about the website and its content. Oh, and Mr. Barnes, don't include the comments, because those don't count. Those are not posted by the website, but by its users and its readers. I'm sure that he would tout the Petraeus advertisement, but that called into question his testimony that he was going to give, and not his service, and not his standing as a general, and not the standing of the military at large. Nope, not at all. Come on Mr. Barnes, show us some examples of how America hating moveon.org is, I'll listen and read, if you can provide some actual examples. Truth is, I do read the website, and I have seen no such thing.
Unless of course, Mr. Barnes is like the rest of the right wing talking heads who constantly insist that anyone not totally on the side of war and destruction are somehow America hating commie pinkos who shouldn't be living in this country, and somehow HATE their own country, because they want to see things changed, possibly, for the better. I'm sure that this is exactly what Mr. Barnes is getting at, and of course tying moveon.org in with Obama, and considering what his middle name is, and his "muslim" upbringing, Barnes knows what he's doing here. It's not just some offhanded remark by him, as others have noted. Nope, it's pure smear, and in trying to bring down Obama with a tie in to this alleged America hating website.
I'm willing to bet a lot of money that Mr. Barnes has probably never pointed his web browser at moveon.org, let alone actually read anything that was written on there.
Buf:
Do you think that ALL protesters deserve to be shot, or just those who protest against Iraq? Do you advocate the elimination of everybody who does not agree with you?
According to him, any protester that doth protest against what he thinks to be right, should be shot. Then again, he's just a fake internet tough guy talking about shooting people who I'm sure;
A: Has never held a gun in his hands before. And
B: Would pee his pants if someone points a loaded weapon at him.
Now he'll come on here and talk about his Vietnam experience (made up I'm sure), and all of that other good stuff.
Hates America = not cool
Hates the Military = not cool
I don't remember conservatives who criticized Clinton's policies being labeled as "anti-American" or "hating the military."
A majority of Americans think the war was a mistake, and want us out of Iraq.
Petraeus will explain to the great unwashed masses that Bush's Grand Surge is ‘working’, but ‘there's more work to be done’ (i.e., staying and dying in Iraq indefinitely).
How dare moveon.org speak up for the majority of Americans.
Secondcitydavey,
Actually, bowelmovement.org was speaking for the majority of those in the democrat party.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1352
And of course we know that nothing has improved in Iraq since then, either for our troops or the political stability in that country.
Only 34% believe Mr. 33% Approval's war in Iraq was worth fighting.
34% ---of Americans, not just Democrats.
And childishly trying to tweak other posters isn't going to change it.
Emphasizing here: that's 66% of Americans who don't believe Iraq was worth it.
That's not a moveon.org position. That's not a Democratic party position. That's the American point of view, not the George Bush's version of America view.