The Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the recent 'General Betray Us' ad by MoveOn.org, passing by a margin of 72-25. A large number of Democrats supported the measure, but Hillary Clinton did not--which isn't at all surprising given that she's declined to condemn the ad on numerous occasions leading up to this vote. What is surprising is that John Kerry did not support the measure; he was, I believe, the first Democrat to break ranks on this. Also joining the 'nays' was Senator Daniel Inouye--perhaps that isn't surprising, but if there's one name on that list that disappoints the most, it's Inouye.
Here's the text of the resolution:
To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
It doesn't even name MoveOn--how can anyone be opposed to condemning "personal attacks on the honor and integrity" of Petraeus or any other member of the military?
The reaction from the netroots to the resolution's passage is sort of interesting. Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent writes:
Jim Webb, who just yesterday was a Netroots hero, voted for it, even though the last thing he needs as a military guy is cover on something like this.
Doesn't it follow then that he voted for the resolution because he shares the apparently widespread opinion that the ad was in bad taste?
The response from MyDD is even more telling:
Looks like it was initially going to be a close vote but as it became clear that it would pass, some weak-kneed Democrats flipped to opposing it. Makes you wonder who exactly is running the show here.
Indeed. DailyKos adds:
Do the Democrats even know who votes for them anymore? Don't they understand that if they continue to piss off the die-hard Democrats, the MoveOn Democrats, they are going to continue to lose elections?
The extent to which these bloggers believe they "own" the Democratic party is striking--and I'm not sure they're entirely wrong, either. But as Brian Faughnan has repeatedly pointed out, "if the anti-war Democratic base flexes its muscles, Republicans will likely be the beneficiaries."
HT LGF
Update: Mitt Romney's response:
"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief."
