Jackson Free Press

If you've heard anything about the recent flap over MoveOn's reported advertisements, comparing Bush to Hitler, you need to read this Salon article, which gives the rest of the story. It's another example of how things that are 'widely reported' are often not reported entirely accurately. "Two online entries out of hundreds in MoveOn's TV-spot contest compared Bush to Hitler, and Republicans cry 'hate speech.' But they're the ones who are twisting the truth," Salon reports.

Previous Commentsshow

As I posted on another site attacking MoveOn, they had nothing to do with these ads. It was a submission from a private individual. Once alerted of the videos, MoveOn removed the ads as Fox News (my favorite source of "conservative news")... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107426,00.html MoveOn.org claims the ad was not submitted by an organization and was ultimately removed from the Web site. MoveOn.org noted that the "Hitler" comparison was not among the 15 finalists that are now viewable on the Web. MoveOn.org released a statement on Monday, saying neither that ad nor another one portraying Hitler and Bush was their ad, "nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions." MoveOn.org noted that those ads were voted down by the group's members and the public, who submitted nearly 3 million critiques while choosing the 15 finalist entries. "We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process," the statement said. "In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system." Has anyone heard anything about the producers of these videos? It'd be interesting and scandalous if they actually came from a conservative trying to throw a wrench in things... <<

kaust

Jan 8 2004

Thanks, Knol. Classic "FUD" and misinformation being spread by hard right-wingers who want to discredit the exciting coalition of all sorts of people coming together to preserve American ideals of freedom. How about this content from a pro-Bush ad a right-wing group in running in Iowa? The ad features a husband and wife and opens with an announcer asking, "What do you think about Howard Dean's proposal to raise your taxes by $1,900 a year?" The husband replies, 'Well, I think Howard Dean should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading Ö "; The wife jumps in: ;"Body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont where it belongs." Steve Moore, president of the Club for Growth, said of the ad: "What we're trying to show is Dean is supported by the cultural elite and not by anyone with middle-American values and finances." Click here to watch the ad. Anyone feel like you've just been profiled??? I know, this sounds like a "Saturday Night Live" spoof ... but it's not! Can you imagine more divisive rhetoric. This has to backfire. I guess they would include independent conservative thinkers like Charley Reese in their laundry list of evil ones. Reese writes this week: What President Bush does not understand (don't worry, I'm not going through the whole list) is that credibility, like virginity, cannot be recovered once it's lost. He thinks it's unimportant that he took the country to war based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein had amassed large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and was on the verge of handing them to terrorists. His attitude is: "Hey, what's your problem? We got rid of a bad guy." Well, the problem is that now any American who believes anything the Bush administration says without a ton of proof to back it up is a fool. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Like a lot of old sayings, it's a basic truth. Do you really think an administration that would lie about reasons for going to war won't lie to further its re-election efforts or to cover up other blunders?

DonnaLadd

Jan 8 2004

haha! Body piercings are part of the "cultural elite"? That's great! Here I am part of the cultural elite and had no clue. ;-)

kaust

Jan 8 2004

Wow. Knol, I bow to your obvious cultural superiority. I gave up coffee, so I don't do Lattes, I don't read the NY Times, and I don't drive a volvo, so I guess that makes me, what, inferior? GAAA! Who comes up with this stuff? It makes me glad I don't live in Iowa. Those poor people have beend bombarded for months by this crap. One of my co-workers was saying in early November that he was already overwhelmed with negative advertising. Is it all just a plot to get voters to stay home, or what?

kate

Jan 8 2004

Is it all just a plot to get voters to stay home, or what? I think it's called classic "divide-and-conquer." I think the zealots are going too far, though, and making asses of themselves. Trying to say that someone who isn't clinging to the hard right with them (like, say, Charley Reese or Chuck Hagel) is a "freak" is a game only the most ignorant will buy into. It's just stupid and shows contempt for Americans' ability to think independently. They're preaching to their angry choir: Everyone else, starting from the moderate right, are going to say, "What the..."? And it becomes harder every day for this administration and its supporters to claim that they're for smaller government. It's doublespeak to even try it.

DonnaLadd

Jan 8 2004

You know, it just dawned on me: Why aren't the same folks who are so outraged that some American made an ad comparing Bush to Hitler be just as up in arms about mouths like Limbaugh calling a woman like Hillary Clinton a femi-"Nazi"? There couldn't be a hypocritical double standard at play, would it? Also, to the freak-mongers who did that ad in Iowa, I would ask: Aren't there some Republicans who drink lattes? I'm sure I could sniff out a few. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jan 8 2004

The e-mail that Dean sent out today certainly shows an appeal to a wider constituency than that weird anti-Volvo ad: Dean wrote: On January 19th, the people of Iowa will begin the 2004 election. On my first trip to Iowa over a year and a half ago I heard people doubting the words of our leaders in Washington. Today, more and more Americans are asking fundamental questions: Who can we trust? Is the media reporting the truth? What is happening to our country? The Americans I have met love their country. They believe deeply in its promise, our values and our principles. But they know something is wrong and they want to take action - they want to do something to right our path. But they feel Washington isn't listening - that as individuals, they lack the power to change the course those in Washington have put us on. September 11, 2001 taught America that we are stronger when we are beholden to each other as a national community, and weaker when we act only as individuals. That tragedy gave us an enormous opportunity to focus not only on our common peril, but also on our common dreams. The peril remains, but the dreams must be resurrected - and they will be in a new American century. But in politics we have not given our people a reason to vote or to participate. We have slavishly spewed sound bites, copying each other while saying little. We raise millions of dollars and each year make lofty promises, while every year the struggles of ordinary Americans increase and fewer Americans vote. Our leaders have developed a vocabulary which has become meaningless to the American people. There is no greater example of this than a self-described conservative Republican president who creates the largest deficits in our history. Or a President who boasts of a Clear Skies Initiative which allows far more pollution into our air. Or a President who co-opts from an advocacy organization the phrase "No Child Left Behind," while paying for irresponsible tax cuts by cutting children's health care. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." The history of our nation is clear: Every time there has been an imbalance of power, the truth questioned, or our beliefs and values distorted, the change required has always come from the bottom up - from our people. This is a campaign to unite and empower people everywhere. It is a call to every American, regardless of party, to join together in common purpose and for the common good to save and restore all that it means to be an American. The first votes of the 2004 election are upon us. And while the President raises $200 million from special interests to maintain his agenda, we will not be silent. He calls his biggest fundraisers Rangers and Pioneers. Hundreds of thousands have contributed small amounts to our campaign - and we call ourselves, simply, Americans. http://www.deanforamerica.com/revolution Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.

DonnaLadd

Jan 8 2004

That's some e-speech. It's got a couple of zingers. I just hope he's not preaching to the converted.

Nia

Jan 8 2004

Nia, you're not advocating the Dean spam a bunch republicans in Iowa, are you? Actually, I'm quite curious as to who he would be emailing to - if it's his own list from DeanforAmerica, or if he's buying email lists, or what.

kate

Jan 9 2004

While I have not yet read the article on Salon (I will after I catch up a little on my work), one point that should be noted is that Moveon seems to be irresponsible by putting the two Hitler / Bush ads on its site. Why did they put them on their site in the first place? DID Moveon screen the ads to be voted on in any fashion? Whether they were created by Moveon or not is a valid point; but, why did they put the ad on their site in the first place? If the RNC or a GOP related site put something like that on their site, they should be called out in the same fashion. It isn't that ads like that are improper, it's more alongh the lines that Moveon was wrong to put it up on their site - and then deny any culpability. I'll be back...

Fielding

Jan 9 2004

Fielding, here's the part from the Salon article that addresses that issue: "Reached at their Berkeley home Tuesday, Wes Boyd and Joan Blades acknowledged they should have taken more trouble to screen their supporter-created ads for content that could be exploited by their enemies. I was surprised by their candor about their RNC-sponsored learning experience. "We had a small committee running the contest," Boyd admitted, which included Pariser and rock star Moby. "We screened mostly for legal issues" -- there are limits to what the MoveOn Voter Fund's 527 status lets the group advocate politically -- "and we referred some questionable things to our lawyers. We decided to let our members decide [on content], and actually the process mostly worked really well. The good stuff rose to the top." The Hitler ads sank. But with hindsight, given the group's new political prominence, Boyd says, "We should probably have had a content filter in the process. It's really tough when you're dealing with political speech, but we should have had one. But that's how it works. You learn, your sensitivity grows. We expressed regret, and that is real." Boyd said he'd spent the day talking to Jewish leaders who'd been offended by the ads, explaining the group's process and personally extending his apologies. "I think they've accepted our expressions of regret." My interpretation is that they opted for 'free speech' rather than trying to control content. I don't think it was irresponsible of them to post the ads, given the context. What's irresponsible is the media portrayal of the whole thing.

kate

Jan 9 2004

I agree Kate. I was posting something similar when notified of your last post. It's "art" and art will offend some people. Some people will not like it. As it was, that's all the ads were, initially. Now, if MoveOn had actually run the ads, it would be a different story... Hell, if they'd featured it as the "hot ad of the week" it'd be a different story. Instead, they relied on democracy to determine the "best" ad and as stated it proved the MoveOn community did not appreciate it. Still, you always walk a fine line when pointing fingers. I actually had someone (after hearing about the ads) state, "I never thought about that. Bush certainly does use God often when decreeing war and justifying his actions... Hitler was notorious for the same thing." So, in some ways, this person really had never taken note of Bush's heavy use of God in politics until the Republican's screamed foul. We had a serious discussion following about the effects of this type of leadership and where it has taken us; he actually seemed more interested in MoveOn after the discussion (not that I was trying to convert). Thought it was interesting... Seems the extreme conservatives don't quite understand the concept of "backfire" and often understimate the intelligence of those that oppose them.

kaust

Jan 9 2004

My interpretation is that they opted for 'free speech' rather than trying to control content. I don't think it was irresponsible of them to post the ads, given the context. What's irresponsible is the media portrayal of the whole thing. You're right, Kate: the media hysteria is irresponsible because it makes them look ignorant of the Internet and its history and challenges. Anyone who has been involved with the Internet in any kind of signficant way knows that it is an old (in Web years) problem of controlling what someone posts on your site when you opt to present any open forum. You always run the risk of someone posting something distasteful, libelous or that steals intellectual property when you allow an open forum. It's happens sites of all political persuasions all the time. We've seen this problem on this site, especially before we required registration. And even now, someone can register with a legitimate e-mail address and post something -- A Bush=Hitler analogy or anything else -- before we can catch them and delete it and suspend them, although we're monitoring pretty closely now due to past abuse. That is the real story behind all this hoopla: the question of how to allow open forums without diligent gatekeeping. And it sounds like the MoveOn couple learned a lesson about it, as have we. But it's certainly irresponsible for the media, or the RNC or anyone else, to present MoveOn's allowing an open forum for people to exercise their First Amendment rights (which, remember that these videos are) as some sort of treason. One would have to suspend their brain and follow Ann Coulter-esque reasoning to come close to buying that. Again, this dust-up shows contempt for Americans' ability to think for themselves. What is especially ironic to me that I've seen some of the same people who bitch and moan about wanting "unfettered" and anonymous access to Web forums scream about the fact that distasteful ads showed up on MoveOn for the very reason that they were allowing unfettered forums. That's just hypocritical and ignorant, and rather sad.

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

Actually, I'm quite curious as to who he would be emailing to - if it's his own list from DeanforAmerica, or if he's buying email lists, or what. That e-mail came from the list for DeanForAmerica, which I'm on. (I'm also on lists for Lott, Pickering, and various other Republicans and Democrats, for the record. ) So, no, it was not spam, and in some ways he is probably preaching to the converted. But I suspect that, like me, there are a lot of people on his list who aren't completely convinced about him, but who are curious about his message. Thus, it's probably a mixture. And I suspect a Republican or two have signed up as well. ;-D

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

heh - not me... although there is certainly truth in knowing what your opponent is thinking...

Fielding

Jan 9 2004

heh - not me...although there is certainly truth in knowing what your opponent is thinking... Indeed, Fielding, I woulda thought every GOP operative in the country would be on Dean's mailing list by now. Maybe you oughta consider it. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

No, Kate, I'm not advocating spam. I assumed the emails would only be sent to people who opted into his list serve. I also agree with Kate adn Knoll that it's the portrayal of the ads that's more problematic than the fact the MoveOn aired them.

Nia

Jan 9 2004

you would have to consider me a currently non-active operative - too busy w/ family and work for now - heh heh although I wish I could go to Haley's inaugural activities, I'm too busy

Fielding

Jan 9 2004

you would have to consider me a currently non-active operative - too busy w/ family and work for now Understood, Fielding, but I do like to tease you a little about it. ;-) Glad you're not too busy to blog about it all now and then.

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

re: that club for growth ad: my dean sticker looks great on my volvo, thank you very much. and i sometimes read the NYT whilst driving around, drinking several lattes at once. now, i'm off to get my eyebrow pierced...

Jay

Jan 9 2004

Jay, there's one other cultural elitist thing all liberals must do... That's buy a Mac. So, if you don't have one already, you can sip your lattes and pierce your brow but you'll never be part of the cool liberal crowd until your Volvo has an Apple sticker on it. ;-) I'll have to sign up for the Dean email. I visit his blog quite a bit but never thought to join his list. It'll compliment the other lists well: American Family Association, Family Research Council, ACLU, Human Rights Campaign... I still think it's great Dean has readily embraced technology. Hell, I can't get most of the politicians in Mississippi to read/reply to their emails. Was told by one assistant of a prominent Republican that they had never checked their email in the history of her employment... I guess Dean has at least revolutionized politics and brought many politicians into the new age and made email, computers, and blogging a new political tactic!

kaust

Jan 9 2004

My ears are pierced. They're part of my body. Does that count as liberal-freak "body-piercing"? Of course, I'm already a "cultural elite," it seems; I do read the New York Times. And I drink the occasional latte. I don't drive Volvos although I have lots of friends who (some Republican, I believe). I prefer NYC to Hollywood. And, yes, Knol, I definitely use Macs. Who knew it was so easy to define "liberal freak"? What goobers.

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

But I can't afford a Volvo! The subway's the best I can do. And I'm a chicken and won't pierce anything other than my ears. Am I still part of the gang?

Nia

Jan 9 2004

You are a reject from the liberal freaks, nia! But I don't know where that lands you in the hierarchy of 'cultural elite' vs. 'middle American values.' We need a chart. And a graph. With footnotes.

kate

Jan 9 2004

I dunno, Nia. I'm thinking we may have to get our belly-buttons pierced to keep our culture elite status. I wonder how many of the criteria one has to meet in order to be a bona-fide freak. I've always wanted my belly button pierced (my inner mall rat trying to get out); perhaps desire alone qualifies me even though I've been too chicken to do it. After all, I didn't get a tattoo until my niece showed up at my house at one, and I said, "that's it!" ;-) I note that tattoos are not part of the criteria, though. Oh well.

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

Philip might have those stats.. ;-)

kaust

Jan 9 2004

Giggle, Knol. We love Philip and his stats, don't we? I have this vision of Ross Perot with all his charts and pointers showing America exactly what makes one a "liberal" freak. I repeat, goobers.

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

Speaking of charts and pointers... A friend (R) of mine said that a Democratic candidate showed up at a radio debate with charts and graphs. He thought this was the funniest thing. I asked him if he'd seen any of the debates and candidates and explained that some of the candidates might have needed the "pictures" to better understand concepts. Still, I'd find it more amusing if the candidate actually thought the audience might "get" the picture... ;-)

kaust

Jan 9 2004

A friend (R) of mine said that a Democratic candidate showed up at a radio debate with charts and graphs. He thought this was the funniest thing. That sounds like an old State-Ole Miss joke. Of course, I heard it was the Ole Miss guy who brought the charts. ;-)

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

I can handle rejection by middle American values-types, but rejection by freaks?! I'm going to b depressed all weekend! :-) Where is Philip anyway?

Nia

Jan 9 2004

I can handle rejection by middle American values-types, but rejection by freaks?! I'm going to b depressed all weekend! :-) You know, Nia, there are freaks, and there are freaks. And there are certain freaks one would want, no demand, to be rejected by -- and I think the folks who came up with that ad are just them kinda freaks. So, cheer up; I think you're going to be just fine. You're a cool freak. ;-P

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

It's good to be cool! :-) Speaking of middle American values, Jersey just decided to honor gay unions.

Nia

Jan 9 2004

And cool to be good. (Y'all noticed we all get a little tipsy every Friday afternoon? Nothing we write during "happy hour" makes any sense.) Re the gay unions in Jersey: I think I hear Knol yelling in glee all the way from Fondren. ;-) Alas, now I have a date with an ad dummy. But there is a cheese souffle waiting on the other end, eh Kate? Ta, all. Have a delightfully freakish weekend.

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

We do get a little weird on Friday afternoons around this time. I'm goin' to go get me some sangria. Mmmmmm!

Nia

Jan 9 2004

I heard about Jersey, Nia. Sadly it's nothing like Vermont's existing unions or Mass.'s proposed equality situation. Still, baby steps are good and much appreciated not only by the gay community but those that see the ignorance and bias in states rejecting such equality! Cheers to you all, Jersey, and freaks with Volvos, piercings and lattes (only when not driving their Volvos). I'm off to have a drink and handle my snakes... "Fact" for the day -- Did you know freakish, gays that drink and own snakes are not part of another free press's demographic??? I know, I was shocked when a guest columnist informed me this morning! ;-) TGIF (Thank God I'm [a] Freak)!

kaust

Jan 9 2004

Yes, there's cheese souffle at the end of Friday madness. And, I'm thinking, martini's. Because it's been that kind of a week. Maybe Al Gore could do some charts and graphs on liberal freaks? And, does my new minivan make me a freak or a middle american?

kate

Jan 9 2004

And, does my new minivan make me a freak or a middle american? A Middle American Freak, I think (or MAFFIE, in USA Today marketspeak). I'm thinking the word "freak" has been bastardized. Y'all? It used to be a lot more interesting before the wingnuts started watering it down with Latte. "Wingnut" is my favorite word, BTW, for a right-wing extremist; as in "right wing nut"; I picked it up from a quote by the governor of Wyoming when the God Hates Fags crowd arrived to protest homosexuality at the funeral of Matthew Shepard (wingnuts are known for their class). For liberal ideologues, I prefer "nutball." OK, now that I've shared my personal glossary of ideological slang, I'm out; will see you shortly, Kate. (Might not be able to handle real martinis, though, Kate. Too many Red Stripes last night.) Happy sangria, Nia. Tug the little snake's ear for me, Knol. A loving weekend to the rest of y'all. We'll be putting together a new issue. TGIF, too.

DonnaLadd

Jan 9 2004

to get back on point... having read the story on Salon, it seems that not all the submitted ads made the cut - how did the two Hitler = Bush ads get through, hmmmm? I'm certainly more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but there are still a few questions I would ask that being said, I will grant that the ads are offenive to me (imagine the howls of protest if the show were on the other foot!!) but even extreme ads such as these deserve to have the same First Amendment protection that other, less extreme ads have - not as art (feh--) but as political expression - that type of speech should be given the highest level of protection and the greatest leeway in expression - which is why the current limits on political ads are such a travesty I say keep open, public records and let the spending begin - that's right - no limits and I also drive a minivan - heh heh

Fielding

Jan 10 2004

I think, Fielding, they 'got through' because the ads were screened for legal issues only, not for content, as is clear in the article. I'm curious what you'd be saying if the shoe were on the other foot. I've yet to hear whether or not you agree with how the media has portrayed this. In the WSJ, it was "MoveOn ads compare Bush to Hitler", or something like that.

kate

Jan 10 2004

People, I'm still around... just that I don't have the time to post like I did back in the last part of oh-three. Weekends will be my best bet to catch me. I see you've been very busy yesterday, so I guess I'll comment about the "freak" matter. Wouldn't most people consider the Hollywood-ized caricature of nerds (think Revenge of the Nerds) "freaks"? They were not portrayed as having piercings, tattoos, really outlandish hair, yadda yadda yadda, you know the rest. They supposedly drive Gremlins way more often than Volvos! Hell, they're usually even portrayed as being so caught up in the quantum dynamics of electrons in a suspended state at a temperature of 0.394867 Kelvins that they probably have never even heard of Howard Dean, let alone be political in any way!!! I don't know about you, but they aren't considered the cultural elite (certainly not the social elite!) Where do they fall into this pattern?

Philip

Jan 10 2004

Fielding wrote: "having read the story on Salon, it seems that not all the submitted ads made the cut - how did the two Hitler = Bush ads get through, hmmmm? I'm having a hard time seeing how you're giving Moveon the benefit of the doubt, Fielding. ;-) Kate is right: this is explained in the Salon piece, and is further addressed in a statement by MoveOn.org co-founder Wes Boyd on the top of MoveOn.org's Web site right now. (Note the point Boyd makes about the GOP morphing Max McClelland's face into Osama bin Laden during his re-election campaign. There's your analogy.) Boyd writes: "None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries. We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system. Contrast this with the behavior of the RNC and its allies when supporters of President Bush used TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 Senate race. It's clear that Republicans will grab at any straw to discredit MoveOn.org right now because it is leading such a powerful grass-roots movement. But this particular effort just doesn't stick very well, when one takes time to examine the actual facts.

DonnaLadd

Jan 10 2004

While I don't see Moveon as such a strong player, perhaps it's because I hang out w/ a different crowd... (do you think? ;-)) It seems to me that the screening process for a "major player," or one who wants to be one, needs to be circumspect about content. Again, the content of the adds in question is pretty over the top. That doesn't mean it can't be done - but a "major player" marginalizes itself and its message when it allows stuff like that as part of its content. Yes, I know that Moveon didn't produce or approve of the ads; but, it should exercise a little discretion.

Fielding

Jan 13 2004

I guess that depends on how you defend "major player." Any person or organization that can raise the kind of funds and mobilize the large numbers of people that MoveOn.org has is a major player, whether the Powers That Have Been can condescend to admit it or not. The Powers That Have Been have made huge errors in judgement and failed to exercise discretion often enough to make your head spin, so clearly that shouldn't be the only criteria used to define a major player.

Nia

Jan 13 2004