Eric Zorn, a columnist and blogger for the Chicago Tribune, has a post up on a flyer put out by the Illinois Republican Party. A reader has advised me that the Indiana Republican Party is putting out the same flyer. It has a picture of Osama bin Laden and a statement that “liberal Democrats want to cut and run . . to withdraw from the battlefield in the war on terror. . . If you don’t vote, liberal Democrats will take control of Congress and end programs that stop terrorists.”
What utter crap. And it’s not at the same level of the utter crap that generally permeates elections. No, this is much more pernicious. What’s the message here? “If you want to change the failed policies in Iraq, then you’re aiding the terrorists.” As to why this flyer is so much worse than your run of the mill attack, Zorn puts it this way:
[T]his mailing is not an attack on a candidate, but an attack on a particular (and large) group of voters; a group of which I consider myself a member.
This mailer says that those who support Democratic candidates are in league with Osama bin Laden; are opposed to stopping terrorism. I consider that to be significantly different from saying “Candidate X supports policies that will endanger our security.â€
I sure hope we can put an end to this crap real soon now. The Army Times has written an editorial calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation, noting that “active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.” I suppose they’re all pro-terrorist too.
Doug, it should be worth noting, the Military Times 4 way editorial was written by a (1)senior managing editor. Military Times Media Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gannett.
It’s not fair to take the word of 1 editor of an advertiser sponsored “for profit” media group as the the word of the military. The magazines are written FOR the military, not BY the military…. The implication is less than honest.
Thanks for the information on who owns/writes the Army Times. Any omission I made was out of ignorance. I had no idea of the ownership structure of the Army Times. Still, I think it’s significant that the editorial was published, but even more so that more and more active military are disillusioned with the progress of the war.
The larger point is that criticism of the prosecution of the war in Iraq or the wisdom of fighting it in the first place is not unpatriotic and it’s not akin to aiding and abetting Osama bin Laden.
The only quarrel I find with “more and more active military are disillusioned” is that “it”
is a statement that simply hasn’t been verified. It’s more of a hunch from a hand full of retired generals that are Monday morning quarterbacking and a very left leaning media conglomerate (gannett). I sincerely don’t think it is unpatriotic to criticize the application of the war, I would just rather see it criticized honestly.
Tim zank: While I appreciate your information about the Army Times, I’d hardly say that Gannett is “left-leaning.” I’m also not sure why the opinions of retired generals can’t be trusted when they disagree with how the Iraq war is being prosecuted. No offense intended.
By the way, I do find the above mentioned flyer to be as repugnant as you do. I do wonder if you feel it was fair of the Indiana State Democratic Committee to send out similar mailings last week where they chastised the Indiana Republicans for “the sale of the toll road”. The mailers also state “the new foreign owners have no accountability to us”.
That’s not an inference or even a snide remark, it’s an absolute lie. I find both flyers reprehensible but the one from the Indiana Dems bothers me more because it isn’t insinuating something, it is flat out lying.
How do they explain that to their kids? It’s just politics? That is reprehensible.
I think the focus of Toll Road opposition on the foreignness of the corporation that took it over is stupid. Claiming there is *no* accountability is obviously inaccurate. The effectiveness of the accountability provided for in the contract remains to be seen. But, I think that’s more along the lines of the run of the mill kind of crap.
I think attempting to associating one’s opponents with bin Laden is just at a higher level.
Well Pila,
Gannett owns 90 daily newspapers (including USA TODAY), just under 1000 non-daily newspapers, 23 TV stations, 130 websites and posted 7.6 billion in operating revenues for 2005. If you read down the list of their nameplates I think you’ll find they are pretty much in tune with the MSM. Not exactly a bastion of conservative ideals.
As for the retired generals, their opinions are very valuable, however, there are only 6 of them and they can’t (or shouldn’t)say they speak for the rest of the military.
The editorial was hyped and released to look like a military statement and it most certainly was not. It was an editorial written by an editor with an agenda working for a huge left leaning media conglomerate. The fact that it was published the day before the election certainly is convenient as well.
It’s perfectly ok to be against the war and rumsfeld, but it’s not ok to imply the United States Military is on board with you.
Gannett owns my hometown newspaper as well as the Indianapolis Star, neither of which could accurately be called “left-leaning.” I think it is a mischaracterization to refer to any media outlet that isn’t explicity right-wing or a bastion of conservative ideals as “left-leaning.”
Also, I haven’t read the editorial, so cannot pass judgement on it one way or the other. What I have a question about is why it is Monday morning quarterbacking for retired generals to disagree with how the Iraq war is being handled. If a retired general agrees with how things are going, wouldn’t he still be Monday morning quarterbacking, since he is not actively engaged in the military? Also, did any of the retired generals claim to speak for the entire military or was it implied in the editorial that they did?
I’m curious: does anyone else think that Gannet is left-leaning?
I think that Tim’s comments on the Army Times are basically just spin. While privately owned, the AT is closely associated with the military, who, after all, constitute its core readership. The AT generally focuses on stories of interest to the military and is generally nonpolitical; it doesn’t, for example, endorse candidates. That’s why I think the article on Rumsfeld is significant; that’s also why Rumsfeld supporters seek to downplay the AT’s close association with the military.
Gannett is by no means left-leaning. if anything, it’s populist. But many Gannett-purchased papers were and continue to be run by quite conservative editorial boards.
The Star has never been liberal, and never will be liberal, no matter how many columns Matthew Tully writes.
But if it doesn’t specifically advance conservative ideals, then by definition it is “very left-leaning”. Right?
I kid.
Thanks for all of the input, everyone. I don’t necessarily agree with Tim Zank, but I respect his views.
lawgeekgurl: my impression of Gannett is that its interests and the way its newspapers are run reflect its profit motive, plain and simple.
In my hometown, the newspaper trumpets the opening of every chain store and restaurant, which is what would be expected from a paper that is part of a corporate chain. There is rarely, if ever, any talk of the impact that big box stores and chain restaurants have on local businesses.