MoveOn dust-up hits Bean race

Patreus made himself a political figure in 2004 when he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in support of re-elcting George W Bush, Patraeus was telling everyone that we were "winning in Iraq" back then too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49283-2004Sep25.html

Petraeus is a Neocon puppet, any General with some sort of differing thought process on the Iraq disaster has already been fired by this pathetic White House.

Bean is basically a Republican anyway, she has to be that way so as to "serve" in that Wingnut infested district she represents.

This could be trouble for Bean. She's always portrayed herself as a "I'm just like you" suburban mom and now she either needs to disavow Moveon.org, thereby giving up a substantial chunk of money and angering some of her supports. Or she can keep the money and be portrayed by her opponents as a hypocrite, a political weather-vane and not the suburban mom moderate that she claims to be. I will be interested to see how she deals with it. I don't think she's just going to be able to ignore this, her opponents probably won't let her.

Oh Johnny E., the General is in a war, he is leading our troops, he is representing our troops (the very same people your ilk says you support), so ridiculing the general is unAmerican, unpatriotic and basically just plain gross.

John D.

We've gone through this before, and you never seem to respond.

Please explain to me the "Republican" support of the troops.

- Defeating a measure to give troops time at home equal to the time in a war zone.
- Defeating a measure to give the troops an extra 1% pay raise because they didn't need it, but voting FOR Rep. Hunter's military aircraft that no one in the military wants.
- Having a President who never served in combat, say how it's okay that troops are serving extended stays and multiple stays in a combat zone because they volunteered.
- Walter Reed hospital. Creating a total disaster at this hospital because the Republicans privatized many of the services AND the President re-appoints the MORON general (yes, I'm calling a general a moron) who created the mess in the first place, back to head the hospital.
- Doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to put pressure on the Iraqi parliament when they took off two months for vacation.
- Sending soldiers into a war that was created on false reasons for war. Despite those false reasons, leaving soldiers in the middle of a civil war when you've accomplished everything that was originally requested.

And then you jerks have the unmitigated gall to refer to others as unpatriotic or unAmerican.

And you've served your country how exactly? Oh I know by paying taxes.

Republicans take money from KKK members, neo-Nazi thugs, xenophobes, and other low lifes. Put in that context MoveOn I'd rather be a member of the Democratic Party rather than one that appeals to racists and other hateful scum.

John D-

Is it hard to learn to goose step?

We have a notion here in the US that the military is under civilian control, not the other way around. Serving military officers are not above criticism, they are not a special protected class above the normal citizen.

Geez, dogjudge, you must be really dense if you don't get what Dyslin is saying. Republicans support the troops by waving the flag, buying bumper stickers and saying they support the troops who moderate a civil war in a foreign land each and every day.

Democrats support the troops by trying to get them the equipment they need, trying to give them enough rest time to be able to keep their families intact, trying to get them pay raises and trying to improve the conditions in medical facilities that will be caring for them for the long-term.

Yeesh, I thought it was obvious. If you SAY you support the troops, you are a super-duper-mega Rush Limbaugh-level patriot. If you VOTE to actual PROVIDE SERVICES AND BENEFITS that ACTUALLY help the troops, you are a pinko, terrorist-loving, anti-American traitor.

Clear now?

Damned if you do, and Damned if you don't. That's what happens when you walk that thin line.

The last time Bean took money from MoveOn.org, she wasn't even in office. They weren't giving money to her so much as they were trying to get rid of Phil Crane.

Bean campaigned as a moderate and has voted moderate. She seems to reflect her district pretty well in that regard. And given those moderate votes, its no surprise she no longer gets MoveOn money -- and unlikely that she will.

The GOP is still sore about losing the Illinois 8th, and will do anything to get it back, including distorting the record and waging a mis-information campaign.

If anyone should be "ashamed," its the Republican party for their utter lack of honesty on this issue.

P.S. If, like Mr. Limbaugh, O'Reilly or Dyslin, you NEVER SERVED IN WAR yet yell loudly from the rooftops how much you "support the troops" with empty rhetoric, you get extra-special bonus patriot points.

Guys, guys, guys . . . as noted in the article, Bean has not accepted any dough from MoveOn.org since 2004. She DID repudiate the MoveOn.org ad. Because a group which has supported her in the past takes a position (i.e., the ad) that she (promptly and publicly) disagrees with makes her a "hypocrite" and "could be trouble" for her? Gimme a break. As I've said before, Bean does a very good job of reflecting the relatively conservative values of her ordinarily very-Republican-leaning district. She gives little (if any)ammo to her Republican opponents with which they might assail her. The National Republican party would be wise to invest their "out of state" dollars in another, more winnable, Congressional race during the '08 campaign.

Sounds like the Neolibs are backtracking. First they vote to continue funding the war yesterday and today they're pretending they've never heard of Morons.Org. Oh wait, there are no Neolibs. Only old ones with gray pony tails and 1960s solutions to 2007 problems. Bong anybody?

What's the screwy logic going on here? Just because she took their blood money in 2004 and not in the last three years means it never happened in the first place? Please. She should give back the exact amount she accepted back then if she really wants nothing to do with them and their ilk.

Bean hasn't impressed me a whole lot, but who else am I going to vote for? Some Bush Republican? I've had enough of those guys.

Sounds like the Neolibs are backtracking. First they vote to continue funding the war yesterday and today they're pretending they've never heard of Morons.Org. Oh wait, there are no Neolibs. Only old ones with gray pony tails and 1960s solutions to 2007 problems. Bong anybody?

Posted by: Horace | October 2, 2007 6:03 PM

Hey, Chicken Hawk Horace. I'm not that old, nor have I a pony tail. What I do have is a brain and am smart enough not to goosestep with the remaining 27% deadenders who still are stupid enough to support this illegal occupation. Get a clue.

"GOP NEEDS NEW DISTRACTION PLEASE CALL 1-800-BUSHKNEW"

The GOP is getting desperate everyday, pretty soon the SENSE OF THE SENATE VOTE OF THE DAY will be to censor all papers before printing. No reporting, or freedom of the press any longer. We are at war America, and I will need to censor what I cannot eavesdrop, wiretap, or simply no recall all communication in America.

CAN SOMEONE TELL THE GOP TO JUST SHUT THEIR NECK AND PLEASE CONTINUE TO MONITOR ALL CONGRESSIONAL CLOSETS, BATHROOMS, and DESKS FOR THE NEXT GOP I'M NOT GAY, BUT I AM BUT WE ARE AGAINST IT SO, I CAN'T BE TODAY MAN OF THE WEEK.

AMERICA IS TIRED OF BEING ON THE FENCE WHEN IT COMES TO REALITY OF YESTERDAY(S)!

"Republicans take money from KKK members, neo-Nazi thugs, xenophobes, and other low lifes."

And the only party that ELECTS KKK members to congress is the DIMOCRATS! Stop drinking the moveon.org kool-aid and join the rest of us in reality.

Paul, it wasn't 27 percent of Democrats (deadenders in your words) who voted for war funding yesterday. Figures out to 84 percent of Democrats in the Senate voting to continue funding the war. It was all of the Demos in the Senate except for the four who didn't vote and 3 who cast nay votes. FYI: Hilly and Bammy didn't vote and Durbin voted for it. Morons.org isn't going to like that.

According to some: "If she takes MoveOn money, she tells the world she is comfortable with its agenda."

This game works both directions, Mr. Greenberg.
So when Giuliani or McCain or Thompson take money from casinos, they are "comfortable with its agenda?" And if they take money from hedge fund managers, they are comfortable with their agendas?" And if Romney takes money from his own pocket?

Just because she took their blood money in 2004 and not in the last three years means it never happened in the first place? Please. She should give back the exact amount she accepted back then if she really wants nothing to do with them and their ilk.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 2, 2007 6:32 PM

Should the Republicans give back the true blood money that they have recieved from the hired thugs and killers at Blackwater?

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search_hp.asp?txtName=prince%2C+erik&NumOfThou=0&txt2008=Y

Talk about ilk that no american should want to be associated with.

Athena, aren't casinos legal businesses whose only agenda is, well, opening more casinos? And, you know, making money doing business? Isn't that what makes our economy run and allows us to enjoy the standard of living we all have?

When a political action group like moveon, or for the sake of argument let's say freedomswatch, gives money to a candidate it's merely purchasing its issue-oriented political agenda. To me that's worse than accepting business money because PACs purchase ads and push a specific agenga in perpetuity. Their mission isn't to change a specific law or regulation but rather to raise more money so that the PAC can exist longer and get even more of its agenda written into law. The agenda grows with the political organization.

Sure, casinos will want liberalized gaming laws, but a PAC will want much more than that. Particularly an odious PAC like moveon that denigrates the leader of our troops abroad.

Posted by: John | October 2, 2007 3:14 PM

John, show me the link to your Swamp post where you disavow Rush Limbaugh for calling Senator Chuck Hagel "Senator Betray Us".

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

"And you've served your country how exactly?"

Posted by: dogjudge | October 2, 2007 4:20 PM

John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D serves his country by saying that John Edwards pays just as much for his suits as Bush does, but refusing to post proof of this allegation. He loves to post his opinion, trying to pass it off as fact, then runs away when challenged to provide substantiation for his words.