Did a Right Wing White House Reporter Conspire With Bush to Bash Dems, MoveOn?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

At the end of yesterday's press conference, a reporter asked President Bush what was his "reaction" to MoveOn.org's Gen. Petraeus ad in the New York Times. The question -- the last of the briefing -- gave Bush an opportunity to express his disappointment in the "leaders of the Democrat party":

I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military. And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad. And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org -- or more afraid of irritating them than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal. It's one thing to attack me; it's another thing to attack somebody like General Petraeus.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the question came from Washington Examiner reporter Bill Sammon, who is also a frequent Fox News guest and formerly a Washington Times reporter. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank notes that Bush was in "need of a pick-me-up" after a series of tough questions on the economy, Iraq, and SCHIP. Therefore, he "looked toward the back of the room" and personally chose Sammon, aka "Big Stretch."

Sammon has written four books on Bush, enjoying a close relationship and unprecedented access. His bio for speaking engagements brags:

Six-foot-seven inch Bill Sammon-nicknamed "Superstretch" by President Bush-enjoys more access to the commander-in-chief than any other journalist. Sammon has spent hours with Bush in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One-even in the President's sprawling Texas ranch. As Senior White House Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, Bill Sammon travels with Bush wherever he goes and was with him on September 11, when his presidency was utterly transformed by the terrorist attacks.

Sammon's friendly softball paid off for the Bush administration. This morning, NBC's Today Show covered Bush's comments condemning MoveOn and Democrats, as did last night's NBC Nightly News and ABC World News. The AP reported on Bush's remarks, noting that he "criticized Democrats for not immediately condemning the MoveOn.org ad, which he called 'disgusting.'"

UPDATE: Last night on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann called out Bush for picking Sammon as the last question, so that there was "no chance at a follow-up" to point out that Bush was the one who actually "interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place."

Amanda Terkel is Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Deputy Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.

[Cantankerous 0]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad, but the outrage over why some Democrats in Congress wouldn't vote to condemn the ad. It's legislating moral platitudes and it's a political ploy to imply guilt by association of the Democratic Party with MoveOn.org. The reality is there are plenty of extreme Left and Right organizations out there who throw their support to either party. I think the Democrats in Congress should put forth a bill to condemn racist attitudes and we'll see how many Republicans squirm over that one.

Edited September 22, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad, but the outrage over why some Democrats in Congress wouldn't vote to condemn the ad. It's legislating moral platitudes and it's a political ploy to imply guilt by association of the Democratic Party with MoveOn.org. The reality is there are plenty of extreme Left and Right organizations out there who throw their support to either party. I think the Democrats in Congress should put forth a bill to condemn racist attitudes and we'll see how many Republicans squirm over that one.

When that shoe is on the other foot it pinches doesn't it? :lol:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad...

Yes, it is. No matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.

[smoke20 0]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad, but the outrage over why some Democrats in Congress wouldn't vote to condemn the ad. It's legislating moral platitudes and it's a political ploy to imply guilt by association of the Democratic Party with MoveOn.org. The reality is there are plenty of extreme Left and Right organizations out there who throw their support to either party. I think the Democrats in Congress should put forth a bill to condemn racist attitudes and we'll see how many Republicans squirm over that one.

the dems (the dem pres candidates) had an opportunity to show support for the troops & the head general in iraq. instead they vote not to condemn the sad exercise in "free speech". they will pay for it come election day. a bill to condemn racist attitudes???? ####### do we need a bill put forth that will have 0 nay votes? nobody would vote in approval of racist attitudes. you're streching real hard here steven.

[GaryC 7]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad, but the outrage over why some Democrats in Congress wouldn't vote to condemn the ad. It's legislating moral platitudes and it's a political ploy to imply guilt by association of the Democratic Party with MoveOn.org. The reality is there are plenty of extreme Left and Right organizations out there who throw their support to either party. I think the Democrats in Congress should put forth a bill to condemn racist attitudes and we'll see how many Republicans squirm over that one.

If they did do you think that Senator Ernest Hollings and Senator Byrd would have voted for it?

[GaryC 7]

You know, it really burns me up when the holier than thou types call republicans racists like that. IMO it demonstrates their own racism. But to refresh your memory Steven I would like to point out just which party is the party of racism.

A Democrat By Design Or A Democrat By Deception

By Rev. Wayne Perryman (African American Historian)

Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is they either know the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.

History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. The Signing of the Constitution in 1787 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced was designed to hurt blacks.

History reveals that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.

History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party that was (and would be) harmful to African Americans.

History reveals that while the Democrats gave their lives to expand slavery, Republican gave their lives to ban slavery.

During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities. Senate Debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

History reveals that after the Civil War Democrats murdered several hundred black elected officials (in the South) to regain control of the southern government. All of the elected officials up to 1935 were Republicans. As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.

History reveals that it was Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. Today many white Democrats are opposed to paying African Americans trillions of dollars in Reparation Pay, money that should be paid by the Democratic Party.

History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats killed several hundred black and white teachers to keep them from educating the newly freed slaves. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

Congressional records show it was Democrats that strongly opposed the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. These three Amendments were introduced by Republicans to abolish slavery, give citizenship to all African Americans born in the United States and, give Blacks the right to vote.

Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

Civil Rights Act 1866

Reconstruction Act of 1867

Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866

Enforcement Act of 1870

Force Act of 1871

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871

Civil Rights Act of 1875

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Civil Rights Act of 1960

And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the

1964 Civil Rights Act

1965 Voting Rights Acts

1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

History reveals that it was three white persons that opposed the Democrat's racist practices who started the NAACP.

Dr. Martin Luther King, several Civil Rights leaders and many historians reported that during the first two years of his administration, President John F. Kennedy ignored Dr. King's request for Civil Rights. The chronicles of history reveal that it was only after television coverage of riots and several demonstrations did President Kennedy feel a need to introduce the 1963 Civil Rights Act. At that time, experts believe the nation was headed toward a major race war.

History reveals that it was Democratic Attorney General, Robert Kennedy that approved the secret wire taps on Dr, Martin Luther King Jr., and it was Democratic President Lyndon Johnson that referred to Dr. King as " that ***** preacher." Senator Byrd referred to Dr. King as a "trouble maker" who causes trouble and then runs like a "coward," when trouble breaks out.

Over the strong objections of racist Republican Senator Jessie Helms, Republican President, Ronald Reagan signed into law, a bill to make Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday. Several Republican Senators convinced President Reagan this was the right thing to do.

Congressional records show after signing the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act and issuing Executive Order 11478, Richard Nixon, a Republican, that started what we know as Affirmative Action.

On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans, Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually harassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work in an environment where they had job classification called " *** Jobs." Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order. The companies still do not have an Affirmative Action Plan.

During the 2003 Democratic Primary debates, the Rev. Al Sharpton, said the Democrat take the black vote for granted and treat African American like a mistress. They [Democrats} will take us to the dance, but they don't want to take us home to meet mama."

Court records show that it was Democrats who supported the Dred Scott Decision, a decision which classified Blacks and property rather than people; it was also the racist Jim Crow practices of Democrats that brought about the two landmark cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education.

After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today. Congressional records show that all previous legislation (since 1964) had strong

bi-partisan support, even though some Democrats debated and voted against these laws.

After reviewing all of the evidence, many believe America would have never experienced racism to the degree that it has, had not the Democrats promoted it through:

Racist Legislation

Terrorist Organizations

Negative Media Communications

Bias Education

Relentless Intimidation

And Flawed Adjudication.

The racism established and promoted by members of the Democratic Party affected and infected the entire nation from 1856 with the Dred Scott decision, to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But they never offered or issued an apology.

Today both parties must remember their past. The Democrats must remember the terrible things they did to Blacks and apologize and the Republicans must remember the terrific things they did for Blacks and re-commit to complete the work that their predecessors started and died for.

http://www.sclagop.org/a_democrat_by_desig...a_deception.htm

Edited September 22, 2007 by GaryC

[Scott & Lai 12]

Excellent article, Gary To follow up on that: many people who don't understand the history of the Constitution point to the "three-fifths" rule of Article 1, Section 2 in an attempt to show that the Constitution is racist because it declared the slaves to be only 3/5s of a human being. That is not what it says, nor is that its intent. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the worth of a black person as a human being. It was about whom to count for the purpose of representation in Congress and for taxation. Those opposed to slavery actually didn't want slaves to count at all for this purpose; those supporting slavery wanted the slaves to count at their full number, not for the benefit of the slaves, but to increase the power of the slave states.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad...

Yes, it is. No matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.

Explain to me a connection between a group like MoveOn.org and the Democratic Party?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad...

Yes, it is. No matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.

Explain to me a connection between a group like MoveOn.org and the Democratic Party?

look at who donates to moveon

[GaryC 7]

I don't care who asked the question - the ad was disgusting.

But see the story isn't about the ad...

Yes, it is. No matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.

Explain to me a connection between a group like MoveOn.org and the Democratic Party?

Behind an Antiwar Ad, a Powerful Liberal Group

Annie Tritt for The New York Times

By MICHAEL LUO and JEFF ZELENY

Published: September 15, 2007

There is no mistaking the influence of MoveOn.org, with its 3.2 million members and powerful fund-raising apparatus, within the Democratic Party.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Antiwar Ad Prompts Dispute (September 15, 2007)

Net Watch: Giuliani Attacks Clinton on War (September 15, 2007)

This liberal activist group has come to occupy a prominent seat at the table among the party elite, so much so that Republicans leaped at a chance to hold Democrats and their presidential candidates responsible for MoveOn’s positions after it ran an advertisement attacking the credibility of Gen. David H. Petraeus.

MoveOn, which has raised tens of millions of dollars for Democratic candidates since its inception in 1998, clearly enjoys friendly relations with Democratic Party officials. Its leaders have met several times over the year with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, to discuss policy and strategy on ending the Iraq war.

MoveOn representatives also take part, as co-founders of a coalition of antiwar groups together under the umbrella Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, in a daily conference call with the Democratic leadership staff on Capitol Hill to coordinate efforts.

Despite conservatives’ efforts to lump together the grass-roots organization and the party and to force individual Democrats to take responsibility for MoveOn’s wordplay on General Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, as “General Betray Us” in its advertisement in The New York Times, the relationship between the two is often complicated and, at times, shows visible fractures.

“I think Democrats understand that when we can join forces and work together, it’s very powerful,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn Political Action. “And then when we can’t, it’s not fun.”

This month, MoveOn sent an e-mail message to members asking whether it should start organizing potential primary challenges against Democrats who were not tough enough on the war, a move that upset Democratic leaders. The group plans to announce the results of its survey on Monday.

The group also sent a strongly worded warning in the spring to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill not to capitulate to the White House as they struggled to come up with a strategy after President Bush’s veto of the $124 billion Iraq spending bill that tied the money to a troop withdrawal timetable.

“We felt it was important for Reid and Pelosi to understand, if they were unable to come through to a conclusion that was seen as bold, they were going to lose the faith of a lot of people,” Mr. Pariser said.

With its attention primarily focused on Congress, MoveOn has yet to become vigorously involved in the 2008 presidential race, although its members have been encouraged at points to telephone Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama’s offices to keep them in line on Iraq. Next week, it is beginning an advertising campaign against the Republican candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani in Iowa. Mr. Giuliani took out an advertisement yesterday in The Times attacking the group and Mrs. Clinton.

The group has held two online presidential forums, one on Iraq in April and the other on climate change in July. Mr. Obama, of Illinois, came out on top in a straw poll for offering the best hope for leading the country out of Iraq and John Edwards won on climate change.

Mrs. Clinton, of New York, trailed significantly in both.

“Anybody who has 3.2 million people in an organization and can mobilize and raise resources and things, they are going to have a big impact,” said Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to Mr. Edwards.

MoveOn has shown a willingness to depart from party orthodoxy on campaigns. Last year, despite party leaders’ entreaties, it took an active role in aiding the antiwar candidacy of Ned Lamont, who was trying to unseat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, then a Democrat supporting the war effort.

Mr. Lamont won the Democratic primary. Mr. Lieberman ran as an independent in the general election and kept his seat.

“It’s good for the Democrats to have an engaged and vocal left,” said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist in Washington. “It’s something the Republicans have benefited from in the last couple campaign cycles. It allows Democrats to look moderate. A vocal left keeps the party from drifting toward triangulation.”

Democratic leaders in Congress and presidential campaigns said they winced when they saw the MoveOn advertisement. While they may have agreed with its overall point, that the troop buildup has not worked, several Democratic officials said privately that the advertisement had been counterproductive.

They said MoveOn had handed Republicans a fresh talking point to criticize Democrats and turn the focus from Iraq in a critical week in the war debate.

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said on MSNBC that the advertisement was “simply over the top, and I think it’s inappropriate, period.”

Ms. Pelosi said on “Good Morning America” on ABC that she “would have preferred that they not do such an ad.”

Republicans have called on Democratic Congressional leaders and presidential candidates to disavow the advertisement, but they have largely declined.

Several officials said even though the text of in the advertisement might be over the top, public sentiment shared a frustration over the war. Officials said they did not want to play into the Republican Party’s hands or anger MoveOn members.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well, there you have it...the Democratic Party is essentially being controlled by a Left Wing extremist group. I'm changing parties.

[GaryC 7]

Well, there you have it...the Democratic Party is essentially being controlled by a Left Wing extremist group. I'm changing parties.

Thats not really to far from the truth. I find it disturbing that they have a daily conference call with the senate and house leaders to discuss "strategy". No wonder they would not disavow themselves from MoveOn.org.

[joelunchbox 0]

Well, there you have it...the Democratic Party is essentially being controlled by a Left Wing extremist group. I'm changing parties.

Thats not really to far from the truth. I find it disturbing that they have a daily conference call with the senate and house leaders to discuss "strategy". No wonder they would not disavow themselves from MoveOn.org.

Well, having been under siege from the k-street gang and the neocons for the last 6 years..WOW, I wonder why the dems are acting they way are. Which is, unfortunately, just like the repubs have... It would have been amazing for someone, anyone to take the high road in congress but some sort of whiplash had to be expected.