New York Times reporter Katharine Seelye reviewed the third in a series of "betrayal" themed ads from the radical leftists at MoveOn.org, the group recently notorious for its infantile "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad in the Times that embarrassed even many Democrats.
Seelye found the latest MoveOn.org ad simply boffo, raving in Tuesday's "Giuliani's Exit from The Iraq Study Group in 2006 Draws Criticism" that:
"The spot is a direct hit on Mr. Giuliani and could severely undermine his argument that he is the best person to lead the nation in a time of war. It also fuels the escalating rancor between MoveOn.org and its Republican critics with its deliberate and repeated use of the inflammatory word 'betrayal.' It is a searing ad, especially when it shows the silhouetted image of the soldiers, with the voiceover: 'Where were you when it counted?' A possible beneficiary of the spot among his Republican primary opponents is Senator John McCain, whose military credentials are solidly intact. If Mr. Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee, this spot will no doubt re-emerge to the benefit of the Democratic nominee."
By contrast, Marc Santora analyzed a Rudy Giuliani ad criticizing Sen. Hillary Clinton for dismissing Gen. Petraeus in "Giuliani Attacks Clinton on War" in Saturday's paper. Ironically, Giuliani's ad pivots off the MoveOn.org's "Petraeus or Betray Us?" ad, saying "Clinton stood silently by when MoveOn.org ran this venomous ad in the New York Times."
Just like Seelye, Santora predicted the spot would be effective -- against Giuliani. His summing-up paragraph stated:
"The spot seeks to generate excitement among Republican primary voters who loathe Mrs. Clinton, while giving Mr. Giuliani the aura of a front-runner likely to challenge the senator, who remains atop many polls of Democrats. But is he also helping the campaigns of Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards by highlighting her perceived shifts on the war? The risk for Mr. Giuliani is that the advertisement exposes him to accusations that he does not talk about Iraq in a substantive way, and it highlights his support of an unpopular war, which could hurt him in a general election."
Well, at least the Times is consistent -- both MoveOn.org's anti-Giuliani ads and Giuilani's own anti-Hillary ads make him look bad.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sounds like...
September 18, 2007 - 14:22 ET by JayTeeSounds like the Article was written using Hillary's name, then they did a "Replace all" with Giulianna.....
"The spot is a direct hit on Mrs. Clinton" by Mr. Giuliani .... she will be on the wrong side of this one for awhile.
Winning the War on Terror, by Gen. Petraus, may require a "Suspension of Dis_belief" by Hillary......that's what you get for running for President 6 months too Early...you embrace a Strategy for 6 months, that isn't the best Strategy for the long run.
Enter Fred, with less baggage and a fresh take on the Reality of Iraq.
Enter Giuliani, with fresh Ammo supplied by Hillary and Company........
"Hillary Can't Handle the TRUTH !" and Gen. Petraus delivered a boatload of Truth.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Giuliani
September 18, 2007 - 14:51 ET by KC MulvilleWhat fool would fall for the idea that MoveOn is more concerned for the troops than Giuliani? Especially after MoveOn smears a general in wartime? No one. They may be Ten Second Toms, but we're not.
Rudy freely admits that he had already decided to run for president by then. Obviously, his presence on the commission would have been awkward at best, and dishonest at worst. I don't blame Rudy for that. My only question is why he agreed to it in the first place.
Does anyone else (besides me) think it's weird for the New York Times to critique ads placed ... in the New York Times?
Check This Ad Out
September 18, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Del DolemonteOver at Power Line, one of the posters came up with an ad MoveOn.org might have run in 1944. Excerpt:
"General Eisenhower or General Lies and Power?"
"General Eisenhower is a man constantly at war with the facts. He believes that Nazi Germany is a direct threat to the United States. It was Japan that attacked us, not Germany"
And the rest is even funnier:
http://www.plnewsfor...
Perfect!
September 19, 2007 - 10:00 ET by pbanks7It's already on my wall.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.