Moveon.org is a 527 political group that ran ads on their Internet site comparing George W. Bush to Hitler. John Kerry's campaign hired the organizing director of Moveon.org as its director of online communications and online fundraising. A former prisoner of war in Vietnam volunteered for President Bush's campaign. The man also appears in a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (buy the book here) ad against Kerry.
The Bush campaign won't allow the Vietnam War POW to volunteer on its campaign anymore. The Kerry campaign refuses to fire the Moveon.org operative it hired for its election bid. Despite the very different roles the two men occupied in each campaign (one a volunteer, the other a top level staffer), and the very different responses by each campaign (the first got fired, the latter remains), the liberal punditry is preoccupied with using Ken Cordier's work for the President's reelection effort to allege the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are a Bush front group, but mute about Zach Exley's role in the Kerry campaign.
The comment that MoveOn ran ads that compared Bush to Hitler is misleading. MoveOn had a contest to find the best Anti-Bush ad. Someone made one comparing Bush to Hitler and submitted it to thier site. The ad never ran on television, and was taken down before most people could notice. Some republicans did notice, however, and began to use it to attack MoveOn. MoveOn never endorsed the ad, and took it down as soon as it was discovered. Yet certain republican smear artists (Like Drudge), continue to taunt the group over this silly incident.
Ah, the ignorance of bliss.
The MoveOn ad was submitted by a user, true. But what you fail to mention is that the process for posting those ads was not automated. Someone in whom MoveOn had placed the trust of judgement MADE THE DECISION that the ad was within the acceptable boundaries of our political system.
And MoveOn pulled the ad down once it was noticed and criticized. Please don't muddle the waters with their supposed altruism and nobility.
Uh-uh yeah. The version I put forth was much closer to the truth than what was posted. I did not muddle, I clarified. Perhaps you clarified further, I don't know. That may or may not be true. If it is it is likely that the desison was made by a low level emplyoee. Are you going to hold the entire operation resposible for the actions of a low-level employee? Should I find George Bush resposible for stripping prisoners naked and torturing thier gentials? Huh?
