It struck me when I read your comment that it was purely Coulterish.

Saxby Chambliss did indeed use the ad, and he won. Whether this ad had anything to do with it is an open question.

The thing is, you made several claims for the ad and what was in it that are simply untrue.

And, of course, Cleland's picture is never superimposed next to bin Laden. Why don't you know that?

The problem with the ad is that it seems to question Cleland's courage by saying that his vvotes have shown that he doesn't have "the courage to lead." This is stupid. They could have merely said that he voted the wrong way.

Here is the ad

I'm beginning to think you really can't see the difference.

In the "old folks" incident, I purposely tried to make it archg and light, and later asked you to go back to see that.

Do you really think that missliberties was being arch and humourous in her remark?

The thing is, I wasn't name-calling, I was using the correct descriptive term. She said the ad said X, but the ad did not say X.

It wasn't a matter, say, of her exaggerating on something, which is what hyperbole is, but of making it up entirely, which is what lying is. In fact, the ad isn't really that bad. Sure, it juxtaposes Cleland in time with a picture of a plane, but so what. (Quickly now, the ad opens with a four picture layout. What is in each of those pictures?

The objectionable part is in using the word "courage" with regard to Cleland, to my mind. (I'll put a link to the ad in my answer to MissL.)

Salon. It's a blog reader expressing his idea that the right to question whether or not something is right or just should NEVER be ignored. It's a response to Abe Foxman of the JDL who'se position is that any questioning or critisizm (of Israel in this case) means you ARE a Nazi whatever you say is untrustworthy. Now, I don't mean to bring in the Israeli part, but the parallels to the whole FISA setup (and much of what the bush43 Administration wants) is right on target with why some of us don't trust the current status quo: please substitute Bushco for Israel-

"What he was doing was essentially calling any critic of Israel and its policies, no matter the policy, was at the very least a vicious liar, and most likely an anti-Semite. I.e. criticism of bushco(Israel) was simply NOT ALLOWED, PERIOD, and anyone who did so was a bad person with a hateful agenda. Never mind the specifics of their criticisms and the facts and reasoning that they used to make them. This was simply beyond the pale and not permissible, no matter what. Israel was always acting legitimately, its survival was always gravely threatened, and by definition it could do no wrong, and therefore criticism of it was simply absurd, and always ill-motivated.

That Foxman's "thesis" is absurd, dishonest and offensive is, I think, fairly obvious to any reasonable and informed observer. Criticizing Israel and its policies does not make one anti-Semitic (or else a sizeable segment of the Jewish Israeli and Jewish non-Israeli population is anti-Semitic, including myself) any more than criticizing the US and its policies makes one anti-American. Nor does "supporting" Israel and its policies make one its "friend". But that's what Waxman basically said--and if you disagreed, well, that just proved his point. Whatever.

But what most disturbs me about this sort of message--which, of course, is not only sheer nonsense, but often expressed precisly for its silencing effect, as a form of thought crime propaganda, much like the congressional condemnation of the MoveOn ad last week--is that it's ultimately self-defeating, because any policies--whether nobly or ignobly motivated--that do not allow themselves to be criticized, to the point of calling any criticism of them to be themselves ignobly motivated, are inherently dangerous.

When a policy precludes any criticism of it, it not only prevents any rational and reality-based analysis of its validity and effectiveness--which are essential for its long-term success--but also indicates its own insecurity, and likely invalidity and ineffectiveness, if not illegitimacy. Strong, competent and legitimate regimes and policies allow and even welcome criticism of themselves, because they know that they can handle it, and that they will likely benefit from it. Weak, incompetent and illegitimate regimes and policies do not allow and cannot handle criticisms of themselves, because they know (even if they'd never admit) that they can't handle it, and might well crumble in the face of it."

Sorry it's long. Can some of you now see the reasoning some of us are feeling when we say that oversight is to all our advantages and that shunning any questioning is not good for our long term governmental institutions?