PDQ,

I think this statement mischaracterizes Move On.

"Its purpose was to encourage Americans to avoid thinking too much about the scandals associated with Bush's predecessor. MoveOn was eager for us to forget about Bill Clinton's flaws and to "move on" to other topics."

Move On has nothing to do with the Clinton administration. It's focus is on the here and now. The purpose is not about avoiding
thinking about Clinton's sex life. It's simply a matter of politics.
I think many confuse the issue of "vilifying" someone with being critical of their politics and how they discharge their elected duties.

I don't hate Bush. I can't because I don't know him personally. B ut I don't believe his is doing a good job and Move On and I agree on this issue. I don't consider this as hypocritical but maybe
reasonably critical. Clinton lied to the grand jury but Bush has done worse, lying to the American people. Clinton was responsible for sexually exploiting and intern (who in turn..as an intern...exploited him.) Bush however has cost the lives of our
servicemen and women in Iraq under false pretenses. The only WMD that will be discovered is in his administration as the Weapons of Mass Deception.

I think the following statement is too general but has an element of truth to it.

"One thing Clinton and Bush have in common is an ability to drive their opponents out of their minds. As many liberals have admitted, hate is not too strong a word to describe their antipathy to Bush — and it shows. The same was true for the way conservatives felt about Clinton."

I don't think that all liberals hate Bush. The element of truth is that this campaign (Dean) is fueled by anger. This may eclipse
the need for evaluating who would make a good President. I personally am not sold on Dean but I will vote for him if he becomes a front-runner because I am unhappy with Bush.

Here, I agree with this.

" Lambasting incumbents is what people in free countries are entitled to do. Tough criticisms, hard questions and heavy doses of satire and sarcasm are entirely appropriate in politics."

Fortunately there are ample doses of all of the above.


"The latest instance involves the posting on the MoveOn site of ads that compared the president to Adolph Hitler."

Now it is nowhere to be found on the Move On site. It was duly deleted. But you can find in in distribution on the RNC site which attempts to make political hay out of it and mislead the intent of Move On.

" After they came in for heavy criticism from such groups as the Anti-Defamation League, the group was at pains to point out that they hadn't actually endorsed the ads and quickly pulled them."

I'm not at all sure that this was the motivation for deleting them.
It may be that these ads did not represent Move On properly.

"In the 1960s, the pop culture of the day dumbed down the term "fascist" from a term that had a specific meaning rooted in historical fact to one that could describe just about anything objectionable."

Maybe and maybe not. Facist has to do with a totalitarian mindset that could be applied to an attempt to apply condign force to those who don't agree with them. John Ashcroft's attempt at the abrigement of freedom of speech and the right to lawful assembly might fall under this classification. The police actions in Miami might be a case in point.


"Now, for some on the far left, anyone to the right of say, Joe Lieberman, is considered fair game for comparisons to the Nazis. "

The problem with the left, near or far, is that they have not been able to agree on much of anything. The far right is of a similar lock-step unquestioning mindset for the most part. The term knee-jerk is more applicable to the far-right than the far-left.

"Rather than being considered beyond the pale, Hitler analogies are nowadays considered clever ripostes, especially among those who cannot control their distaste for Bush."

Not especially. It works both ways. There are plenty of neo-cons who have used the Hitler analogy liberally to characterize liberals. The idea that in a political election year one side is more apt to use the Hitler card than another is not really evident. I agree that it is overblown.

I don't think Hussein's analogy to Hitler works or bin Laden's for that matter. These are different "animals" with apologies to the animal world for the use of the term.

But Move On is a political entity. The organization is critical of the Bush Administration and I believe justifiably so. They don't endorse Hitler as a model for Bush but they do seek a redress for
the problems that this administration has caused.

These ads do not represent MOve On and the evidence for this is they are gone. Only the RNC keeps them alive.

Frank