Radiofree West Hartford - MOVEON'S LATEST SMEAR by Tim Siggia

MOVEON'S LATEST SMEAR

By Tim Siggia

June 13, 2006

Make no mistake: Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) is a liberal Republican. A few years back, in fact, the conservative newspaper Human Events listed her as one of the ten most liberal Republicans in Congress. She has voted for such things as minimum wage increases and the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, and, being staunchly pro-abortion (an all-but-official requirement for all Connecticut politicians), voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. These things having been said, she is also a person of integrity. While many (such as myself) may disagree with her politics, few will question her ethics or her honesty. Unless, of course, they are members of that school of political piranhas that calls itself MoveOn.org.

A MoveOn.org commercial currently being aired on Connecticut television charges Nancy Johnson with being "caught red-handed," having accepted almost $80,000 in PAC money, then voting against placing Congressional sanctions on the technology giant, Halliburton -- which, according to the commercial, overcharged the government for its services and in doing so somehow deprived our troops of necessary body armor to carry out their mission. Doing something of a fast-forward, the commercial ends with the following: "Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, and now Nancy Johnson: another Republican caught red-handed," followed by a claim of responsibility by MoveOn.org for the contents of the ad.

Before we examine this Goebbels-like piece, it must also be stated that an earlier version of this anti-Johnson ad included corruption suspect Jack Abramoff, making a direct implication that Abramoff and Johnson were somehow connected. No such connection has ever been established, and the ad was apparently pulled in favor of the present one. The real reason for this, however, may well have been not so much the fact that any supposed connection between Nancy Johnson and Jack Abramoff goes beyond the realm of speculation to that of pure invention as that it has come to light that Democrats as well as Republicans have been linked to Abramoff. That in itself would be enough to cause the attack dogs of MoveOn.org to be reined in. For, as every MoveOn.org member is required to believe, there is no such thing as a bad Democrat, Zell Miller being the obvious exception. But I digress.

The technical aspects of MoveOn.org's charge may be true. But so what? If Nancy Johnson has accepted PAC money, what politician hasn't -- including the can-do-no-wrong Democrats? If Nancy Johnson is guilty of corruption, why hasn't she been indicted? With all the lawyers the Democrats have entrenched in their camp, why has not so much as one come forward to formally charge Nancy Johnson with her alleged wrongdoing? In short, what is it that Nancy Johnson has done here that is illegal?

Probably the same thing Tom DeLay has. Had it not been for a relentless witch hunt by Travis County (Texas) district attorney Ronnie Earle, a political hack of the most partisan order, there is no doubt that DeLay would not only still have his Congressional seat, but would also still be House Majority Leader. Unlike Nancy Johnson, however, DeLay was eventually indicted by a grand jury: the third grand jury convened by Earle, the first two having found his charges against DeLay to be without merit. DeLay, believing he was doing the right thing, gave up first his post as majority leader, then his seat in Congress. What is important to note here, however, is that he was never convicted of anything! Indictment does not equal conviction, no matter what the 3.2 million members of MoveOn.org might want us to believe.

And Dick Cheney? Come on, get real! Yes, he did own Halliburton stock before he became vice president. Before! He divested himself of those holdings before assuming office, in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. So what is his crime? Being a stockholder? Do we now send out the Gestapo to round everybody who owns a share of stock in this country? Remember, MoveOn.org speaks for the political party that is against building any more prisons. Oh, excuse me, how could I have been so negligent as to forget that Cheney was never charged with assault with a deadly weapon, as he of course should have been after the much-ballyhooed hunting accident. If that's the crime MoveOn.org is referring to that Cheney got caught red-handed at, might I ask them what should be done with a United States senator who gets drunk, drives while intoxicated, drives his car off a bridge, and then leaves his female passenger trapped inside the sunken car to drown? Oh, excuse me again: I forgot all about the statute-of-limitations. Besides, that particular U. S. senator belongs to the Correct Political Party.

The Correct Political Party, one of whose most prominent members, the 42nd president of the United States, no less, was instrumental in giving this organization its name. None other than William Jefferson Clinton, who, if you want to talk about people being "caught red-handed," was caught on videotape lying to the American People. The House Impeachment Managers of 1999 had Slick Willie caught dead to rights, and his crimes -- those of perjury and obstruction of justice, to be precise -- were virtually proven. Yet, for reasons having far more to do with politics than with anything so much as resembling justice, refused to convict the obviously guilty president, offering such flimsy excuses as, "Everybody lies about sex," and, "These crimes do not rise to the level of impeachment." Well, let's examine these statements. In the first place, not everybody lies about sex. Everybody in the United States Senate, maybe -- and still, that's only a maybe -- but certainly not everybody. I'm not a betting man, but I'll bet my next paycheck that it wouldn't be too hard to find at least one man or woman in this country -- in Connecticut, even -- who does not lie about sex. Secondly, if Clinton's crimes did not "rise to the level of impeachment," then at what point, may I ask, is that level reached. Where in the Constitution does it say anything at all about the level of impeachment? Could it be in that article that directly follows the article that guarantees women the right to abortion, perhaps? I've never been able to find that article either. And note: Even Clinton's defenders said these crimes do not rise to the level of impeachment. In other words, they outright admitted Clinton's criminality. What does the Constitution say about impeachment? Does it not use the phrase, "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Hmmm. Last I knew, perjury was a felony. So, in other words, a misdemeanor rises to the level of impeachment, but a felony does not. No matter, it's history now. Clinton got over, as most insiders at the time knew he would. And, when conservatives, stubborn demanders of justice that they are, protested this obviously politically-motivated miscarriage of justice, what was the reaction among Clinton's defenders? In so many words, it was, "Enough with the witch hunt! Let's move on!" How ironic it is that the hypocritical members of MoveOn.org are now themselves the ones engaging in witch hunts.

I have no crystal ball, and cannot foretell the future, but I feel it a pretty safe bet that in the end the MoveOn.org ad will backfire. Why? Because, if history is any precedent, this is the way that fair-minded people have traditionally reacted to political mudslinging. They know that the name MoveOn.org, has no more to do with the goals of the organization that bears that name than the name People for the American Way has to do with the organization bearing that name. Besides, as stated at the beginning of this piece, Nancy Johnson is a liberal Republican. So, no matter who wins in November, her Congressional district will be represented by a liberal, as all Connecticut districts are and traditionally have been.

So what, pray tell, is MoveOn.org's beef?