September 23, 2007

The NYT admits it gave a deep discount to MoveOn.org for the "General Betray Us" ad.

Amazing. Clark Hoyt, the NYT public editor, has this:
... MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

... [T]he ad [also] appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print....

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.” Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days....

Jespersen, director of advertising acceptability, reviewed the ad and approved it. He said the question mark after the headline figured in his decision.

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran....

For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen’s shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.
Terrible. Embarrassing, too, now that we know it. What else is there that we don't know. Could Hoyt look into that?

By the way, I'd have allowed them to use the language they wanted. I like to see how people choose to express themselves. It's helpful if it's not watered down for more comfortable consumption. I want to taste the poison so I can spit it out. And free speech is kind of an important value too, you know.

219 comments:

1 – 200 of 219   Newer›   Newest»
P. Rich said...

"MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies."

And duncical lefties stampede to comment, each hoping to be the first to recant earlier denials. No, wait...

AllenS said...

It was obvious to anyone who read the ad, that it wasn't for standby. This is the last sentence of the ad: "Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us." [bold addded]

mcg said...

This was the first blog I hopped over to once I read the NY Metro News story, having had discussed it here before! This is a surprise all around, really. To those who said this was a fake controversy (ahem), it is a surprise that it isn't. To those who at least suspect it was, it is a surprise they came clean about it.

Bruce Hayden said...

Above posters have pointed out half the problem, the other being the NYT's very forceful opposition to the war in Iraq and Administration through its editorial, and more importantly, news pages. You combine that very apparent stand by the paper with a time sensitive ad sold at a stand-by rate to an advocacy group aligned with the NYT on this issue, and you get at least the appearance of a $100k in-kind political contribution by a company that can't really afford it, if it were legal, which it may not be.

Pogo said...

"We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.

A mistake only in that the NYT-as-house-organ-for-the-Democrats mask was permitted to slip. If the discount data had not been released, we'd have never known, and they'd have seen nothing wrong with it.

More accurately put It was a mistake we got caught.

AllenS said...

Beautiful morning in West Central Wisconsin, and AllenS feels like singing with his friends The Rolling Stones.

Time is giving me standby, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

Now you always say
That you want the ad to be free
But youll get standby prices (said you would baby)
You won't pay full prices (I said so many times before)
Youll be advertising with me

Oh, Time is on Move-on's side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

reader_iam said...

Color me unsurprised.

garage mahal said...

This clearly calls for Republicans to bring a resolution condemning discount rates for opposition ads, to go along with the resolution condemning free speech from last week.

jfm said...

A half-price ad from a paper whose stock value has dropped in half over the last two years--this must make NYT shareholders happy.

dave™© said...

[T]he ad [also] appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”

Yes, an ad of that sort has never appeared in the Times.

Anyhoo, MoveOn got nearly $2 mil in contributions from that one ad.

Eat shit, brownshirts.

dave™© said...

A half-price ad from a paper whose stock value has dropped in half over the last two years--this must make NYT shareholders happy.

Better half price than a blank page.

I love when brownshirts talk about the the realities of economics. Fucking college-age Marxists know more about economics than you clowns.

Donald Douglas said...

This is the ad the keeps on giving. Radical lefty bloggers - I've been attacking FDL on this issue - have embraced MoveOn like a lifevest amid drowning Democratic congressional fortunes.

You're right though: It's a good example of free speech and the marketplace of ideas. It doesn't take long for the vile taste of MoveOn to trigger the gagging reflex.

jfm said...

Dave/trademark/copyright:

You said:

"I love when brownshirts talk about the the realities of economics. [Obscenity] college-age Marxists know more about economics than you clowns.

Here's what Clark Hoyt, the NYT editor had to say about the ad:

"MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083."

In plain English the NYT public editor said that MoveOn got the ad at half-price.

garage mahal said...

Donald-
Don't forget hate America radical leftists like Admiral Fallon who attacked Petraeus viciously calling him a coward.

Ralph said...

DaveTMC, you missed the point. The ad may have made money for Moveon, but it innoculated the General and it helped Petraeus and Bush sell more war to the non-moonbat center. Most people would call it an own-goal, but some may just be in it for the money and to feel righteous about themselves.

I find it unlikely the ad seller could make such a big error unintentionally, but maybe that explains some of the share price loss.

SMGalbraith said...

when brownshirts talk about the

You forgot to mention our jackboots.

Although frankly, I stopped wearing then when I got corns.

Not to mention all that shining and polishing you had to do.

Life itself is tough; why add extra hassles?

SMG

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meade said...

Ralph said...
"DaveTMC, you missed the point"

Ralph, I see you've met Dave.

Moneyrunner said...

Actually it's less than half price. Is this about a $78,000 contribution to MoveOn.org.

It's probably not illegal, but it seems to be unethical. But then, that's a barrier the Times broke through many years ago.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wwren said...

Why is “the right of free speech” relevant at all to this issue? Is the NYT a government instrumentality? Did the government try to suppress the ad or the NYT printing of same?

Phil said...

I'd like to see more discussion of this Point:

Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said.

When did this happen before? It's harder to pass off as an innocent mistake made by a low level clerk if they've done it before.

AllenS said...

One more time

dave--

If you had a house that was worth $142,083, and someone was willing to pay that price, and you sold it for $64,575, would you think that you had a good sense of economics?

Ralph said...

Phil, presumably they bought a standby ad earlier at the standby rate. This ad wasn't standby, but in their shoes, would you bring it up? Or, it could be a Moveon mole fixed their computer account at the standby rate and no one else noticed.

Carolynn said...

I feel the NYT running that extremely offensive ad at a discount was their own prerogative.

Glad the NYT has $77,508 less in their coffers actually. And if it just happens to piss off more of middle America....

Heh.

George said...

"I want to taste the poison so I can spit it out."

Excellent line. Excellent.

EnigmatiCore said...

Well, it looks like I was wrong when I said that Giuliani and Thompson were making a mountain out of a molehill. I thought it was odd that they got their ad run that day, but I thought it was just they got lucky and not that they got the discounted rate without the date-uncertainty.

I guess Giuliani's prosecutor's instincts were working just fine on this one.

jane said...

Blackberries for reporters: $113,000
Black smudges on readers’ fingers: soap and drycleaning bills
Black eye sucker punch to sitting general: civil discourse trashed, "paper of record" cred shredded (into finer pieces)

Black day for the Gray Lady: too pricey.

We all gonna pay, until publications and news outlets declare themselves the partisans they are and declare their de facto $ and propaganda political contributions. Natch, the Times' favorite lady, Hillary, couldn't bring herself to repudiate the Move-On ad as a stand-alone piece of effrontery.

Sloanasaurus said...

Another example of left wing bias in the MSM.

Some lefties argue that maybe its just the editorial pages that are biased. However, here is an example of bias in the marketing department!!!!

The New York Times is a left wing news source. Everything they write or advertise should be viewed with a grain of salt.

SMGalbraith said...

Why is “the right of free speech” relevant at all to this issue?

Well, despite the tortured efforts of some posters, it's not.

However, a reasonable argument can be made that the Senate had no business voting on a denounciation of the ad. Such actions could have a (ugh, I'm frankly tired of the metaphor) "chilling" effect.

I think the Senate's actions won't chill anyone. But it does raise the stakes a bit in these politicized times and will, I have no doubt, lead to Democrats demanding the denounciation of some ugly statement by someone on the Right.

I guarantee it. It's only a matter of time.

SMG

Luckyoldson said...

NYT's = BAD.

Weekly Standard = GOOD.

FOX NEWS = GOOD.

Democrats = BAD.

Republicans = GOOD.

We get it.

Simon said...

Wwren, I agree that the First Amendment is irrelevant to this issue, but I think the culture of free speech as a natural right doesn't precisely track the boundaries of the First Amendment and vice versa.

garage mahal said...
"This clearly calls for Republicans to bring a resolution condemning discount rates for opposition ads, to go along with the resolution condemning free speech from last week."

It wasn't free speech. Just heavily discounted speech.

PatCA said...

It seems this ombudsman position is sort of a good cop/bad cop thing. The NYT does whatever it damn well pleases, then accepts a mild scolding from him in atonement. Case always closed.

SMGalbraith said...

We get it.

We brownshirts just don't have the sophisticated, nuanced worldview that you liberals, er, lefties, er progressives have.

Let's see: it's simplistic to call Islamists evil but it's nuanced to call Bushco evil.

I'll keep working on that one because, to be honest, I'm stumped.

SMG

Zeb Quinn said...

We get it.

Sadly you don't. In fact you flat-out missed it.

When the New York Times or any other media outlet becomes invested as an actual participating player for one side in the partisan games politicos play they cease to be an objective news source. And they can't be trusted either, especially when they do their best to conceal it, lie about it, and then deny that they're doing it.

Meanwhile, whatever it is that FOX News does that gets your bloomers all twisted up in a bunch they do right out in the open with bells on their toes.

Gedaliya said...

In any case, the entire incident is paying dividends to the Republicans, and will provide much material for fund-raising and get-out-the-vote efforts in 2008.

Like Abba Eban said about the Palestinian arabs, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. We'll see many more of these gaffes in the next few months. The Democrats' relationship with MoveOn.org and the netroots will prove fatal to their White House dreams next year.

reader_iam said...

I denounce the ad.

I denounce the NYT's handling of it (in terms of how its own policies and procedures, and its even-handedness thereof, over time).

I denounce the U.S. Senate's actions (proposal and passage of the resolution, especially as presented).

(Just sittin' here in Iowa, spitting out the poison.)

reader_iam said...

Ptooey.

Zeb Quinn said...

I denounce the U.S. Senate's actions (proposal and passage of the resolution, especially as presented).

The point was to repudiate the despicable slandering of an honorable man who officially serves us. Why would you denounce that?

garage mahal said...

It wasn't free speech. Just heavily discounted speech.

So why didn't they call for a resolution against Fallon's remarks, which went way beyond MoveOn's play on words.

I admit the the Times is probably trying to atone for how they got duped so badly in 2003-2004. Anyone remember Rice, Cheney et al going on the all the Sunday talk shows with a copy of the Times in their hands to plead their case?

Simon said...

Zeb Quinn said...
"When the New York Times or any other media outlet becomes invested as an actual participating player for one side ... they cease to be an objective news source."

That implies that they could be regarded as an objective news column when they were merely making biased calls while presenting themselves as the referee.

It's pointless to pretend that media can be bias free, it can't be, and we'd all be better off if they'd acknowledge that they aren't linesmen who've accidentally strayed onto the pitch, they're as invested in the outcome as any other player.

Gary Carson said...

The NYT has just as many mealy mouthed wimps as the US Senate, but the rate was the right rate if the ad would have canceled if it didn't run Monday and if they'd have run a full-rate ad in it's place if one had come in.

It simply looks like Move On knew in advance the Monday edition wasn't sold and that it was highly likely the ad would run on that date at the standby rate.

But when Althouse seems to think that Petraeus is some kind of patriot she's just flat our wrong. He is a betrayal to his uniform. He cares about his career advancement, not his country.

It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?

Bullshit.

Meade said...

Simon said...
It wasn't free speech. Just heavily discounted speech.

As usual, Simon is nearly flat out correct. I looked it up:

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of deeply discounted speech, or of the press to profit or even to take a financial bath by selectively offering standby rates to Barbary pirates, privateers, and f*ckers at the New York Times ...”

D said...

But when Althouse seems to think that Petraeus is some kind of patriot she's just flat our wrong. He is a betrayal to his uniform. He cares about his career advancement, not his country.

Yeah, a 4 star General has to worry about his career every day. He'd better keep bad news quiet, or he won't get that 5th star.

Under Pinch, the Times mission isn't increasing shareholder value, or bringing accurate and timely information to it's readers. It's accomplishing social change, especially destroying the current administration and harming the United States national interest.

Their stock price reflects that mission.

Gahrie said...

garage mahal:

to go along with the resolution condemning free speech from last week.

Even a flaming lefty like you should be able to tell the difference between condemning the ability to speak, and the content of that speech.

Unfortunately, it appears you can't.

Gedaliya said...


It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?


General Petraeus was awarded a bronze start with a "v" (for valor). The "v" device is awarded only for acts of courage under fire. Are you suggesting that this award was unearned, or otherwise fraudulent?

garage mahal said...

Gahrie, I'm going out on a limb and guess the content of free speech should be judged by right wing websites. Just a guess! And why won't anyone here condemn Petraeus's boss calling him an ass-kissing chickenshit? Or do you give that much more weight to what a left wing advocacy group says or prints.

mcg said...

Gedaliya, that is exactly what he and quite a few others are doing---questioning if he deserved the medal. To them it's only an outrageous tactic when it is used against them. In service of their agenda it us perfectly acceptable.

mcg said...

And why won't anyone here condemn Petraeus's boss calling him an ass-kissing chickenshit?

The same reason I get to call my brother an asshole and you don't.

Ken said...

Can anyone tell me why the NYT operating budget should not be considered a contribution to the Democratic Party and subject to campaign finance laws?

Gahrie said...

garage mahal:

Gahrie, I'm going out on a limb and guess the content of free speech should be judged by right wing websites

Sure. Why not?

Just like it's judged by leftwing websites, neutral websites, newspapers, TV station, little old ladies on their porches and old men in barbershops.

Hell, I'm even willing to acknowledge that moonbat mental institutions like DailyKos have the right to judge the content of free speech.

Verso said...

I think it is amusing and entertaining to watch the Party of Hate, which is propelled daily by the personal attacks of meanspirited bullies and professional smear artists like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc., suddenly acting like sensitive babies about an ad that hits back for once in the only language that the right-wing actually understands. I would suggest that the crying babies of the authoritarian right grow the F up. At least try to act like you are 12 years old; it would be an improvement.

AlphaLiberal said...

First, the ad was not as personal as it sounds at first blush. The ad asks hard questions that have to do with the man's discharge of his public duties. These hard questions are dodged under the cloud of manufactured outrage that a military man leader would be criticized, as if the Constitution has been suspended.

MoveOn has also argued against the deification of Petreaus and for the principle that civilians can criticize military leaders.

Now, Ann Althouse and many in the right wing stampede against exercise of first amendment rights , are against any criticism of this man. (Though it's okay for the right wing to criticize serving generals, as the National Review does and retired veterans as they do constantly).

The fact is Petreaus skewed his reports, he cherry-picked the data all in support of issuing to himself and his patron Bush a glowing report card.

Althouse, of course, cares not a bit for the substance of the MoveOn argument, and prefers to obsess over style and adopt the right wing's framing.

The attack on MoveOn is a low point for this nation's dedication to democratic discourse. The right's and sycophantic muddling "middle"'s embrace of censorship is shameful.

So I gave MoveOn another $100. They're closing on $2 million now.

mcg said...

At least try to act like you are 12 years old; it would be an improvement

This is an interesting attack considering we're talking about an ad that utilized a rhetorical device used most frequently in elemetary school circles.

Gedaliya said...

I would suggest that the crying babies of the authoritarian right grow the F up.

If the Democratic Party is now run by people who share this attitude, the Republican Party is going to not only keep the presidency in 2008, but it will handily regain control over the House and Senate.

hdhouse said...

Moneyrunner said...
Actually it's less than half price. Is this about a $78,000 contribution to MoveOn.org. It's probably not illegal, but it seems to be unethical. But then, that's a barrier the Times broke through many years ago."

This is typical.

They (moveon.org) paid the equvilant to a standby rate but if it were true standby, they couldn't have picked the day and spot in the paper.

$64,575 is net rate (actual amount paid) MINUS 15% so the quoted rate was about $75,971. Total full price for a page is $142,083. So move on paid about 53.4% of rate card.

We have no idea of the promised frequence of future buys from moveon.org which greatly effects the rates. If this were a one time only, then the NYT had an orphan page and this was found money.

It is not a "contribution". Some admin in adsales was asleep at the switch (or not). But we don't know and the information supplied by the times is, actually, confidential and very much like shooting themselves in the foot.

But the fact remains, NO ONE pays rate card so dream on and keep trying to pin something on them. Its funny reading.

Gedaliya said...

Now, Ann Althouse and many in the right wing stampede against exercise of first amendment rights , are against any criticism of this man.

No one is restricting MoveOn's First Amendment rights. Thank God they have the absolute freedom to reveal the true character of the angry left. Thank God even more for the leading Democratic candidates for president exercising their First Amendment rights either endorsing or keeping silent about MoveOn's disgraceful ad.

You guys are going down in flames next year precisely because MoveOn.org's advertising is protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment lets us all find out who you really are.

Verso said...

Well said, AlphaLiberal.

Many of the nutters and loons posting in this thread seem to think that the MoveOn controversy will marginalize the organization and "piss off middle America." But of course, as usual, the opposite is true. Across the board, polls taken since Petraeus's testimony show declining support for the war, approval of Bush, and belief that the surge is actually producing positive results. People hate Bush, and they hate the war, and they aren't going to be lied into believing it is going well, or bullied into obedience to the right-wing, pro-war agenda.

There was a point on Friday when I was marvelling at the right-wing's incoherent rage over the ad, and the Democrats' cowardice in voting to condemn the ad, that I finally decided MoveOn must be doing sometime right.

The patriotic thing to do is support MoveOn with lavish contributions.

jfm said...

Gary Carlson said:

"It simply looks like Move On knew in advance the Monday edition wasn't sold and that it was highly likely the ad would run on that date at the standby rate."

Clark Hoyt, the NYT Public Editor said this about the ad:

"MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083."

In plain English, the NYT public editor said that MoveOn got the ad at half of the price that they should have been charged.

Gedaliya said...

Now, Ann Althouse and many in the right wing stampede against exercise of first amendment rights...

Um. The Senate voted 72-25 to condemn the ad. They did not vote 72-25 to prevent the ad or a similar ad from running in the future.

And this "stampede"...I guess you include 23 Democrats in the "right wing" now, eh?

Gedaliya said...

The patriotic thing to do is support MoveOn with lavish contributions.

Absolutely. Your way is the future of the Democratic Party.

Be there or be square.

Verso said...

mcg said: This is an interesting attack considering we're talking about an ad that utilized a rhetorical device used most frequently in elemetary school circles.

Did you notice that question mark at the end? "They were just asking a question!" Did he betray us?

:D

That's a clever trick you right wing lunatics probably recognize from the Republican Party's media arm, Fox News. They use the rhetorical question mark all the time. "Democrats Traitors?" "Democrats objectively helping the terrorists?" "Democrats hate America?"

The real reason for the baby-like sobbing fit y'all are having is that finally someone is talking to you in the same tone of voice that you have all used in driving the debate into the sewer with your hatemongering spokesmen over the past 15 years.

I'd say it's time for you to grow up, or at least get a diaper. A lot of us are sick of your shit and don't plan to go along politely with your plans to destroy this country and everything good that it stands for.

ed waldo said...

Verso said ... "the same tone of voice that you have all used in driving the debate into the sewer with your hatemongering spokesmen over the past 15 years."

Right on. Minor correction, though:

21 years.

stepskipper said...

Has that Fallon quote been substantiated? Last i heard, it wasn't:

>>A couple of things about this IPS “scoop”. IPS reported the alleged exchange on September 12, or yesterday to you and me. The alleged exchange occurred back in March. You also might wonder how IPS got this juicy nugget. Did Admiral Fallon put a call into the news agency renowned for “delving into globalization”? Hardly. IPS got the story from “Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.” Mind you, IPS didn’t just use just anonymous Pentagon source who might have seen the exchange. IPS relied on sources who not only didn’t witness the exchange, but didn’t even talk to people who witnessed the exchange. They were just “familiar with reports of the meeting.” Allegedly.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/8040ca8d-2b1e-4aba-a942-62f45a5749ea

Maybe it has been recently, i honestly don't know.

Steven said...

A non-standard discount given to a PAC is an in-kind campaign contribution under campaign finance law. The New York Times gave a non-standard discount to the MoveOn PAC and, then, to the Guliani PAC. The New York Times is accordingly in violation of campaign finance law on two counts, and given the New York Times's record on cheering campaign finance laws, the appropriate FEC response is a multi-million-dollar fine.

antiphone said...

Right on Alpha Liberal, I just gave my first $100 to MoveOn.

Verso said...

maybe the right wing nutjobs can sputter with baby-like rage about this:

At 9 pm ET on Saturday, Fox News will air a one hour special about the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who recently argued in Congressional testimony that President Bush's "surge" in Iraq is working. The program, titled "American Commander: Gen. David Petraeus" and hosted by Jon Scott, will look at Petraeus' "life and times."

Maybe some of the smart ones here in this forum can discuss whether Fox News constitutes an in kind contribution to the Republican Party.

On second thought, nah! What fun would that be!

mrs whatsit said...

This line in the Public Editor's apologia particularly struck me: "For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility." Did anyone else notice that he didn't even try to claim that the Times sets a high standard for political neutrality?

As for the numerous posts from those claiming that the Moveon ad was perfectly fine because after all, Republicans started it with Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Ann Coulter, et al -- I wondered how long it would take you all to trot that one out. It comes up sure as the sun rises, every time something like this happens, and what I want to know is this: if you all on the far left think that the behavior of Ann Coulter and the rest is so bad, why do you knock yourselves out so to copy them? With all that moral outrage, one would think you would be exerting some effort not to become what you claim to despise. The eagerness to imitate makes it hard to believe the cries of horror.

Palladian said...

"Maybe some of the smart ones here in this forum can discuss whether Fox News constitutes an in kind contribution to the Republican Party."

Discussing the official policies of the United States military and the United States government and discussing the life and times of one of the active duty commanders of our non-partisan military on a television show is not the same as running a lame partisan smear campaign (and cash beg) in the New York times. Even someone as willfully stupid as yourself should understand that difference.

But I whole-heartedly encourage lefties to give to MoveOn until it really hurts. I mean, really, really hurts. Sign over your paychecks! The more the radical left pushes, the better the chances that moderate liberals will finally purge themselves of their dead weight and start winning elections. It's not healthy to lack a loyal opposition, whatever the party currently in power.

AlphaLiberal said...

OK, here's yet another massive double standard flagged by the venerable TalkingPointsMemo.

At a Republican Presidential debate they warmly embraced a rewritten version of "God Bless America" that caustically attacks the American people:

RightWing Watch provides transcript:
"Why should God bless America?
She’s forgotten he exists
And has turned her back
On everything that made her what she is"

So, attacks the American people? Warm applause.
Attack a pandering General who mimics the President? Condemnation.

This is the stuff authoritarian states are made of. Althouse's position with authoritarians noted. Expect no posts from her condemning this.

AlphaLiberal said...

"And this "stampede"...I guess you include 23 Democrats in the "right wing" now, eh?"

No, not all. They would, mostly, be the stampeded. Some are right wing, though. Often the most spineless.


verso made this great point:
"Maybe some of the smart ones here in this forum can discuss whether Fox News constitutes an in kind contribution to the Republican Party."

No kidding! FoxNews is subsidizing the GOP (Gropy Old Perverts) evrry day and every hour!

Cedarford said...

I'd like to see more discussion of this Point:

Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said.

When did this happen before? It's harder to pass off as an innocent mistake made by a low level clerk if they've done it before.


Nice point.
Was this a one-time innocent goof-up or does the NYTimes give discounts to the Far Left on a deliberate, frequent basis in violation of federal eclection laws and it's own journalistic ethics rules?

Standby for some connected people in the biz to be looking long and hard on that.

*********************

Gary Carson - But when Althouse seems to think that Petraeus is some kind of patriot she's just flat our wrong. He is a betrayal to his uniform. He cares about his career advancement, not his country.

It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?

Bullshit.


It's one of those simple little civics principles in the American system that Lefties think they alone can flout.

We cannot function well as a nation with a politicized civil service, military, or judiciary. Our tradition is strongly against that. In the judiciary that has been compromised by Lefty activist judges legislating from the bench and by Bork slimings of judges personal integrity. The Left hasn't dared do it with the Civil Service, but only because the unions would chew a little bastard like Eli Pariser up and spit him out. They have done it with the military, from spitting on returning soldiers in the Vietnam days, to assisting deserters these days, and impugning the honor and integrity of all those who serve.

Trust me. As someone who was overseas a lot, you don't want to transform the Armed Forces into a junta in waiting by forcing the military into domestic politics.

The difference the Left is blind to (and some on the Terri Schiavo whacko right with their venomous attacks on the person of Judge Greer) is in the difference in someone in PRESENT OFFICE holding in what is apolitical office and someone who USED TO BE IN OFFICE BUT IS NOW IN POLITICS.

John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court judge is free to engage in politics and be politically attacked because he is no longer a sitting Justice.
Many people who are active politically were ONCE employees of the Federal Civil Service.

And the difference between Sen Kerry and former Senator Cleland and Petraeus - which Lefties don't get - is that Petraeus is active duty and cannot engage in partisan politics, while the former (and Bush) are just politicians that once served in the military and their life's record can be used politically to their credit or detriment.
One of the last things I did while serving was trash the fitness report of a very good officer who dumbly got quoted in the media saying he depised the Commander-in-Chief and didn't respect Clinton as fit to give orders.

Zeb Quinn said...

It's pointless to pretend that media can be bias free

There a difference --a very big difference-- between pretending and expecting them to make an honest effort.

It's an honesty thing. Learn about it.

mcg said...

The real reason for the baby-like sobbing fit y'all are having is that finally someone is talking to you in the same tone of voice that you have all used in driving the debate into the sewer with your hatemongering spokesmen over the past 15 years.

"FInally?" Do you seriously expect us to believe that the left-wing finally said, "Sigh... you know, I'm really tired of addressing my political opponents in a civil and rational tone." Hmm.

AlphaLiberal said...

Cedarford said:
"Trust me. As someone who was overseas a lot, you don't want to transform the Armed Forces into a junta in waiting by forcing the military into domestic politics."

I was hopeful when I saw that but then you went all Banana Republican.

Why demand that a general not be criticized? MoveOn has provided ample documentation, ignored in the debate, that Petreaus has presented burnished spin for years.

Instead of calling the general on his record of public statements we're supposed to silence ourselves and get the vapors when the general is on our TV. Ugh.

Further, Petreaus has made himself a political figure, openly musing about running for President, echoing the President's spin, phrase-by-phrase.

Republicans are constantly using the military for political ends.

Cedarford said...

Alpha Liberal - So I gave MoveOn another $100. They're closing on $2 million now.

Antiphone - Right on Alpha Liberal, I just gave my first $100 to MoveOn.

Verso - The patriotic thing to do is support MoveOn with lavish contributions.

Excellent!

In 2004, one of our anti-military, anti-American Lefties said she was giving 500 bucks to Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink to help "really mess Republicans up". I told her if she really wanted to mess the Republicans up, she should give to "Friends of Tom DeLay" and help poison the Republicans from within.

So your money for Moveon.org is indeed money well spent, speaking as an anti-Democrat! Give frequently! More poisoning the Democrats from within!

David53 said...

Palladian said,

But I whole-heartedly encourage lefties to give to MoveOn until it really hurts.

Several here have voiced the same recommendation and I wholeheartedly agree. Don't stop at a $100 donation, save the cheerleader, save the world.

AlphaLiberal said...

"FInally?" Do you seriously expect us to believe that the left-wing finally said, "Sigh... you know, I'm really tired of addressing my political opponents in a civil and rational tone." Hmm.

It's funny you would ask because that is exactly the conversation we've been having for, oh, ten years.

We generally won't stoop low as the Republicans do. We're just toughening up lib dialogue.

antiphone said...

Well Cedarford, if you really believe donating to MoveOn is the best way to hurt Democrats you’ll be making a donation yourself. No?

AlphaLiberal said...

I will note that no, or few, conservatives here are addressing why citizens must not criticize military leaders.

Nor how you square that belief with the democratic traditions that (formerly) made America great. Can you quote Franklin, Madison, Washington or Jefferson saying military leaders must not be criticized? (no doubt Washington had cause to wish for same...)

The right wing, and Ann Althouse, are pushing a profoundly anti-American position.

mcg said...

It's funny you would ask because that is exactly the conversation we've been having for, oh, ten years.

Yes, and it's a conversation that apparently suffers from Vietnam- and Reagan-era amnesia.

AlphaLiberal said...

mcg, do you really believe that American citizens should not criticize military leaders?

Or does that only apply when those military leaders are echoing GOP talking points? Seems like your view.

mrs whatsit said...

I don't believe for one minute that alphaliberal is too dumb to see the difference between criticizing a military leader and doing what Moveon and the Times did. If this situation were politically reversed, I'll bet the difference would suddenly become crystal clear and alphaliberal would abruptly lose all need to ask disingenuous, insincere rhetorical questions.

mcg said...

Indeed. I thought it was we wingnutters that saw everything in black and white, who lacked nuance!

Bruce Hayden said...

We generally won't stoop low as the Republicans do. We're just toughening up lib dialogue.

Quite humorous, if you ask me.

Palladian said...

"I was conscious of an impropriety
in my disputing with a military man in matters of his profession,
and said no more."

Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography

Are lefties ever conscious of any improprieties among their own ranks?

John Stodder said...

Jane Hamsher is probably fuming at Catherine Mathis right now.

Don't. Confirm. Inconvenient. Facts. Ever.

I mean, couldn't she have "pivoted?" Couldn't she have said, "Interesting point about how much Move On paid the NY Times for that ad. How much did you pay for that cell phone, brownshirt?"

Revenant said...

The real surprise isn't that the NYT gave a leftist group a bargain on its ad rates, or that they lied about having done it... but that they actually *admitted* to having done it.

Bruce Hayden said...

mcg, do you really believe that American citizens should not criticize military leaders?

Or does that only apply when those military leaders are echoing GOP talking points? Seems like your view.


The problem is that active military cannot defend themselves. When you attack Kerry's or Bush's military service, they are fully able to defend themselves.

So, it comes across to many as kicking someone when they are down, or slugging someone when their friends are holding their arms - essentially unfair.

So, you are attacking someone's honor in a situation where they can't defend themselves. It is one thing to attack their position, but attacking their honor is different, very different.

And claiming that the Gen. was echoing GOP talking points does that too - since you are suggesting that he doesn't believe his own testimony, but is rather testifying to please the politicians who gave him his command.

Revenant said...

Simon,

What's your opinion on the law here? Is the NYT in trouble under campaign finance laws or not?

John Stodder said...

I will note that no, or few, conservatives here are addressing why citizens must not criticize military leaders.... The right wing, and Ann Althouse, are pushing a profoundly anti-American position.

Nothing infuriates me more, nor makes me more suspicious and untrusting, than such disingenous comments.

You are smarter than you're pretending to be, Alphaliberal. The story is not about Move On's absolute right to criticize a military leader, or even to lie about him. They have a right to do that that I would uphold.

The issue is the New York Times' pretense to objectivity being revealed as hollow. They gave Move On a huge discount they wouldn't have given you or me (or at least me), strictly because of the politics. And then they lied about it.

If you want to talk about whether Americans are allowed to criticize military leaders, go start a blog about that. If you want to talk about whether the NY Times should be encouraged to lie about blatantly playing politics, that's the subject here.

antiphone said...

Didn’t the NYT sell Rudy Guiliani space to respond to the MoveOn ad at the same price?

John Stodder said...

The real surprise isn't that the NYT gave a leftist group a bargain on its ad rates, or that they lied about having done it... but that they actually *admitted* to having done it.

As a publicly traded company, the Times would have been forced to divulge this information eventually. If they were setting preferential ad rates and thereby depressing revenues as a matter of policy, the stockholders would have a right to know about that.

hdhouse said...

Patreus is a political general and became that the second he stepped up to defend Bush...or as soon as Bush called upon him to step in front of the bullet. Shameful.

revenant...nytimes in trouble for what? selling ad space? hello? that is their business.

remember that the NYT gave Rudy the same rate for his attack on Hillary ...hmmm let me see. I punch your brother and you hit my sister back...haha..

don't you cons like the free market system?

laughing at you.

mrs whatsit said...

Yes, it looks from the Public Editor's column as if the NYT did do so, on Giuliani's demand. That doesn't seem to me to mean a lot, though. Once the Moveon decision was out there in the public eye, the NYT really had no choice but to sell one ad to an opponent at the same price.

Gedaliya said...

Patreus is a political general and became that the second he stepped up to defend Bush...or as soon as Bush called upon him to step in front of the bullet. Shameful.

This is nonsense. Petraeus commands 160,000 men on the field of battle. He reported the facts to Congress in regard to the military situation in his theater of command.

Do you accuse Petraeus of lying to Congress?

Simon Kenton said...

antiphone said...
Well Cedarford, if you really believe donating to MoveOn is the best way to hurt Democrats you’ll be making a donation yourself. No?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I not only contributed to Ralph Nader, I encouraged my most vehemently liberal and environmentalist acquaintances to 'send a message' and to 'make sure their vote was not wasted on one of the cookie-cutter candidates,' and 'stand up this ONE TIME for what they knew to be right.'

It looks like the true Nader-momentum is with Move-on these days, and so, Yes, antiphone, I will be contributing to them, and suggesting they have been way too restrained, and asking that they hit out as only they know how to hit, and try to be Really Forceful in their rhetoric instead of pussing around, since it's what the American public needs and in its heart Really Wants to hear.

See you and raise you in the voting booth, pard.

John Stodder said...

Patreus is a political general and became that the second he stepped up to defend Bush

Not according to anyone at any point in his career, including no Democrats at his confirmation hearing. Petreaus' reputation was precisely the opposite.

But hell, hdhouse, why not say it? Why not tell big lies? That's Move On's strategy. Slime him. At least 35 percent will believe anything you say. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. You'll be vocally defended on this site and elsewhere. And if anyone on the left knows the facts, they'll stay quiet and to avoid Jane Hamsher's dictates. So anyone who criticizes you can be disregarded as a "brownshirt."

antiphone said...

As far as the legal aspect of this controversy goes, Giuliani is a candidate and has different legal status from MoveOn. If there were legal problems under campaign finance laws for the “discounted” price of an ad, it’s more likely they would apply to Giuliani’s presidential campaign than to MoveOn’s issue advocacy.

Verso said...

Whatshisname said: The issue is the New York Times' pretense to objectivity being revealed as hollow. They gave Move On a huge discount they wouldn't have given you or me (or at least me), strictly because of the politics. And then they lied about it.

Hey, whatshisname, you have no actual proof of any of that, do you?

In fact, you're the one who is lying, aren't you?

the public editor says the discount rate was the result of an "advertising sales representative [who] made a mistake."

Now, you're free to believe this is a lie, but don't pretend it is anything more than your own supposition. You have no actual evidence that the rate was "strictly because of the politics," or that they lied about it afterwards.

You're the liar, quite plainly.

Gedaliya said...

I don't think there should be any restrictions on how much the Times charges for MoveOn ads. I think the Times should be able to give the space away for free if it wants to support the aims of MoveOn.org.

I believe the only requirement for such largess is that the Times publicly disclose its actions.

mcg said...

Uh-oh, Godwin's law is rearing its head fast. Back off, John, back off! Your argument is sound, no need to invoke the Nazis to make it. We'll leave that to the lefties here.

Verso said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Verso said...

Revenant said... The real surprise isn't that the NYT gave a leftist group a bargain on its ad rates, or that they lied about having done it... but that they actually *admitted* to having done it.

Here we have another great example of the information processing skills of wingnuts. The same information processing skills that have dug this country into the hole it is in after 7 years of Bush's failed presidency.

It does not appear to have occurred to Revenant that, in fact, the NTY did not "admit" to what he says they admitted. (That means he's lying, unless it means he's stupid. I'll put my money on lying.)

The NYT admitted making a mistake, but the nutters and loons of the Bush cult now claim that the NYT admitted something else: giving a politically motivated discount to a far-left group, then lying about it.

So what do we have? We have wingnuts lying to accuse other people of lying.

:D

How perfectly symmetrical.

garage mahal said...

The same reason I get to call my brother an asshole and you don't

Which is, why exactly?

John Stodder said...

Verso, the Times has changed its story. Their calling it a "mistake" today is a change from the previous story, in which they said Move On paid the standby rate and just got lucky. So the first story was a lie. That's what I was referring to.

I have no idea beyond that, but that's enough to support my charge.

downtownlad said...

Oh please. It's so funny to see the wingnuts rail against free enterprise and free speech. The NY Times can charge whatever it wants to whoever it wants.

As for the ad, it was mild. Petreaus is a bigoted liar who should be treated with zero respect. If I were to meet him in person, I would have no problem calling him a scumbag to his face.

As for the wingnuts, they can call Private Beauchamp "evil" and make up lies about Medal of Honor winners like John Kerry, but you'll get tasered if you dare to point out that General Betrayus was lying to Congress (which he did).

downtownlad said...

I believe the only requirement for such largess is that the Times publicly disclose its actions. - Gedaliya

According to what law? Tons of companies charge different rates to different clients.

But you're a communist, so it's not surprising that you think this.

mcg said...

The NY Times can charge whatever it wants to whoever it wants.

Actually, no, not according to campaign finance law. I agree with you that they should be able to.

Palladian said...

"If I were to meet him in person, I would have no problem calling him a scumbag to his face."

That's a laugh. You're a chickenshit coward, hurling your crap, safely anonymous. You wouldn't dare say in person the stupid shit you say on here (and elsewhere) because someone would pop you in the nose and, of course, you'd cry like a little girl.

Most people are actually reasonable in person, and I've met quite a few people of political stripes quite different from my own with whom I've been able to share an interesting conversation.

Now, let's see how long it takes you to turn yet another conversation into another of your weird attempts to reenact the primal scene of your existential despair, your weird hang-ups about your sexuality that you were never able to work out with mommy and daddy.

I urge everyone here, left or right or whatever, from engaging with dtl. He's not here to have a conversation. He posts comments in the worst faith. Don't let him destroy the conversation (if it's not already destroyed for other reasons) because that's what he's trying to do.

downtownlad said...

MCG - The truth comes out.

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

We all know that of course, but its nice to see you admit it.

downtownlad said...

Palladian - You really do need to get over your obsession with me. It's turning into a farce.

I would have no problem calling General Betrayus a scumbag to his face. Zero. I called my sister a c&unt to her face after all. Big deal.

And no - I'm not afraid of getting tasered or tortured, which is the likely response.

stepskipper said...

Kerry won the medal of honor?

Palladian said...

dtl, I'm a crazy mofo and it's my mission to try and keep you from fucking this place up.

Again, everyone, I urge you to avoid engaging with downtownlad. It's fruitless (no pun intended) and it just gets him off.

downtownlad said...

Sorry - he won the Silver Star.

downtownlad said...

People enjoy engaging with me Palladian. If you don't want to engage me, ignore me.

I am bringing up valid points, which is unusual as this has become something of an echo chamber, where a good 70% of the commenters are wingnuts.

Palladian said...

"The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, but powerful. So don't listen, remember that, do not listen."

Max Von Sydow in "The Exorcist"

downtownlad said...

Well Palladian - too bad I don't believe anything that Jesus bastard said.

SMGalbraith said...

Things, not surprisingly, have turned really ugly.

Okay, so don't stop the presses.

What was it Darwin said? Competition within a species was more intense than between species.

SMG

blake said...

I think mcg hits upon the salient point.

It is (or might be?) an issue according to election campaign laws. The idea that expressly political speech can be limited in any way strikes me as being against the spirit and letter of the 1st.

That should be a target we can all unite against. (Heh.)

It also might be an issue according to the rules governing publicly traded companies. It's probably too far to the libertarian side to suggest we can all get behind eliminating those.

Seriously, though, as far as the NYT's bias, is there anyone out there going, "Well, yeah, this FINALLY proves it!" Didn't we all have our minds made up beforehand?

Steven said...

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Um, no. They're saying "MoveOn Political Action" is a registered political action committee. If MoveOn Political Action used an in-kind contribution from the NYTimes to express dislike of broccoli, it would still be a campaign finance violation, yet it wouldn't constitute a particle of evidence that broccoli is a subsidiary of the Republican Party.

And the Giuliani thing just indicates the New York Times broke the law two times. That the PACs involved are in certain respects opponents doesn't actually matter from the legal perspective. We just have the Times hoising itself on its own campaign-finance-reform petard twice instead of once, a compounded crime.

downtownlad said...

It is astounding that the wingnuts think that MoveOn.org buying an ad and expressing an opinion is violating the law.

Astounding.

mcg said...

DTL, that is an absurdly illogical leap. I think you ought to demand a refund from the organization that administered the IQ test to which you so often and so fondly refer.

mcg said...

It is not illegal for them to buy an ad. It is illegal for the NYT to give them a special discount for it... Though as I said before I don't think it should be.

downtownlad said...

It is? Under which law? Please provide the text.

mcg said...

I don't mind doing so but I'm not that nimble with my iPhone. I will try and dig it up when I am at my desk.

mcg said...

I did just read however that MoveOn is going to pay the difference! Sorry I can't post a link.

Gedaliya said...

It is not illegal for them to buy an ad. It is illegal for the NYT to give them a special discount for it...

It isn't illegal for the NY Times to give a discount to anyone for any reason.

It is, however, embarrassing to get caught doing it for an organization as loony left as MoveOn.org.

Trooper York said...

Regan MacNeil: Lick me, Lick me.
(The Exorcist)

Craig said...

Who knew the republicans and conservatives were so sensitive. Anyway, it is much easier to bitch about some ad for days on end rather than talking about the war or any other important issues. I guess this is a helpful distraction for the republicans. None of you were outraged at John Boehner's comments about the "small price" we have paid for the war but if John Kerry botches a joke the place is up for grabs with fake outrage that lasts for days and days.

Also, Moveon just announced that they are going to pay the full rate and have asked Rudy to do the same.

Also, after reading all of these comments and blog posts by Althouse it is amazing that she thinks of herself as a moderate or independent. This is a lie. Why not just embrace your support for the republicans rather than pretending to be something for who knows what reason. Oh yea, you don't hate the gays like the rest of the republicans so I guess that makes you moderate.

All this blog does is bitch about Hilary, Bill, Obama, John Edwards, the NYTimes, Moveon, left wing websites, left wing actors, left, left, left.

There is never any discussion around issues revolving republicans or conservatives that isn't generally complimentary.

I don't think of that as independent or moderate. I think of it as boring and predictable.

I came to this site because somewhere it was referred to as a moderate blog but that is just not true. Nothing wrong with that and maybe that is not how is publicizes itself and maybe I have the wrong impression.

Also, when 90% of the comments here are from diehard republicans with a free liberals thrown in it kind of reinforces the idea that this is a conservative site-again nothing wrong with that but don't lie.

Isn't this blogger pro choice also but supported the recent supreme court nominees? If they were to decide on repealing Roe v Wade would that we unsettling to a Pro choice "independent"? Or maybe it doesn't matter any more because heaven knows she is past her child bearing age.

Trooper York said...

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Groucho Marx

vnjagvet said...

Of course DTL has conveniently ignored that the NYT itself said the discount to MoveOn.org was improper under its own guidelines.

Improper does not mean illegal, however, and the arguments that it was a violation of the MF Act are not persuasive.

DTL's artful subject changes on this string are a wonder to behold and pretty amusing.

Quiet, Artist at work.

downtownlad said...

Craig,

Ann is allowed to blog about what she wants, and she is allowed to claim she is a liberal even if she is pro-war. If that's what interests her, it is her blog and she can blog about it.
I like to talk about some issues that are of interest to me, and I get annoyed when people automatically assume I am left-wing because of that. Ann comes across as moderate to me, but pro-war, which is ok, even if I disagree with it.

MCG - It's not embarassing to be associated with moveon. They are a respectable organization. Only the wingnuts are bothered by moveon. Most of this country could care less, or agree with them. They have 3 million members after all, which is a lot.

downtownlad said...

It's not impromper at all. The NY Times can charge whatever rates they damn well please.

If I had to guess, my hunch is that too many organizations were demanding the $65,000 rate, which in reality, was probably only used in certain situations. Thus, it was threatening its revenue. They might still allow people to buy ads at $65K, but for the sake of profit and negotiating power, you want people to assume it is much much higher. I'd bet a lot of money that that is what is going on right now.

mrs whatsit said...

Craig, do you think that you score big points by pointing out that a woman is "past child-bearing age"? Obviously you do, or you wouldn't have put it in your post. Evidently, given your dislike for !posts by those you seem to think are Republicans or conservatives, you also believe that you are liberal/progressive/enlightened/
non-sexist etc. etc. Sadly, you just can't have it both ways.
Cognitive dissonance!

Zeb Quinn said...

Seems to me that one aspect about the legality of this in kind donation has to do with the reporting requirements. A private company like the NYT probably can donate money to moveon.org, but it probably also is a donation that needs to be reported to somebody, be it to the IRS, or the FEC, or some New York state body. And speaking of state law, there may be some other violation there. And that's not even getting to civil liability under a shareholder action.

MikeinSC said...

Yes, an ad of that sort has never appeared in the Times.

Anyhoo, MoveOn got nearly $2 mil in contributions from that one ad.

Eat shit, brownshirts.


So, as long as it makes money, it's acceptable to you?

Just checking.

Your lack of ethics is impressive.

I love when brownshirts talk about the the realities of economics. Fucking college-age Marxists know more about economics than you clowns.

So, you're saying the NYT can't sell ad space? Wow, Pinch has been even worse than I thought he was.

Don't forget hate America radical leftists like Admiral Fallon who attacked Petraeus viciously calling him a coward.

And the link to him saying that is...where?

If you had a house that was worth $142,083, and someone was willing to pay that price, and you sold it for $64,575, would you think that you had a good sense of economics?

Better yet --- let's say Bush had a house that was worth $500,000, but he only paid $250,000 for it when he bought it from a supporter.

I guess nobody would see a problem.

It simply looks like Move On knew in advance the Monday edition wasn't sold and that it was highly likely the ad would run on that date at the standby rate.

Can I interest you in some beachside property in Montana? Such naivete has to be used by somebody wiser than you.

It was okay to criticize Kerry, who actually had individual awards for valor, but not okay to criticize Petraeus who has nothing but a chest full of gedunk?

Hmm, you criticized Petraeus for being obsessed with his career --- and then complain about Kerry being questioned by other soldiers?

Interesting.

Even a flaming lefty like you should be able to tell the difference between condemning the ability to speak, and the content of that speech.

I'll remind you that these same lefties thought Bush actually claimed Mandela was killed by Hussein. Telling the difference between things seems to not be a strong suit.

The real reason for the baby-like sobbing fit y'all are having is that finally someone is talking to you in the same tone of voice that you have all used in driving the debate into the sewer with your hatemongering spokesmen over the past 15 years.

Can we now accuse you of complicity in genocide? God knows the GOP has been hit with that smear frequently enough.

I mean, Robert Byrd, former Klansman, is CLEARLY representative of Dems. The constant "outing" of gay conservatives indicates that liberals really hate gay people. The love of insane conspiracy theories indicates psychotic issues.

Do you REALLY want to get into more mud-slinging?

Yes, and it's a conversation that apparently suffers from Vietnam- and Reagan-era amnesia.

Those weren't "attacks". They were asking "tough questions". There's a world of difference --- well, in the eyes of those who don't maintain consistency minute-to-minute.

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Well, if the one part of the government that actually does its job well supports the GOP, I can handle that just fine.

I would have no problem calling General Betrayus a scumbag to his face. Zero. I called my sister a c&unt to her face after all. Big deal.

Explains why your family hates you.

MCG - It's not embarassing to be associated with moveon. They are a respectable organization. Only the wingnuts are bothered by moveon. Most of this country could care less, or agree with them. They have 3 million members after all, which is a lot.

Hey, it's almost 1% of the population!!!

It's not impromper at all. The NY Times can charge whatever rates they damn well please.

Not under McCain/Feingold. Which, mind you, the NYT championed heavily.

If I had to guess, my hunch is that too many organizations were demanding the $65,000 rate, which in reality, was probably only used in certain situations. Thus, it was threatening its revenue. They might still allow people to buy ads at $65K, but for the sake of profit and negotiating power, you want people to assume it is much much higher. I'd bet a lot of money that that is what is going on right now.

We get it.

You're an idiot.

Thanks for proving it fully.
-=Mike

Gahrie said...

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.


Assume for the sake of arguement that this is true. Now take the next step and ask yourself why.

You can start with thirty years of Democratic politicians selling out the military and America's vital interests.

mcg said...

Folks, it simply is not correct that the NY Times can give a discount for any reason that it wants. MoveOn.org is a registered political committee as defined by the law, so it must conduct its business according to those laws---as must those who do business with it.

What would simply be a discount to non-political organization can be interpreted as an in-kind contribution to a political one---effectively a soft-money contribution equal to the amount of the discount given over the usual and normal charge. Corporations are expressly forbidden by 2. U.S.C. P441b and 11 C.F.R. P100.52(d)(1) from making a contribution of this sort.

Look, as I said, I don't think it should be illegal. I think that such contributions ought to be disclosed, but not illegal. Nevertheless I see the recent actions both by the N.Y. Times to publicly state that this was a mistake, and the move by MoveOn.org to pay the difference, as an attempt to distance themselves from accusations of violating the law.

MikeinSC said...

I hate the law --- but I do think it's beautiful that groups that championed it like moveon and the NYT are so ready to violate it at the drop of a hat.

Can anybody remind me why it as a good idea and not simply removing all laws and requiring total disclosure and allowing the opponent to make it an issue?
-=Mike

mcg said...

MoveOn.org's CYA statment.

downtownlad said...

It's time to put Giuliani in jail - because he got a discount from the Times - and is in violation of the Campaign Finance law - at least according to Marxists like MikeinSC who no nothing about the law, and who who oppose the First Amendment.

MikeinSC also has zero problem when the military becomes a partisan organization.

If the military is now equivalent to the Republican party, which MikeinSC says it is, then please tell me what is the problem with opposing the military and calling its incompetent generals scumbags?

Just like our President is a scumbag.

mcg said...

I have to admit MoveOn.org's move to pay the difference, and their call for Giuliani to do the same, is an interesting chess move. I'll be interested to see what Rudy does.

And I am more certain than ever that DTL got ripped off by the folks who administered his IQ test. I mean, it's utter malpractice that he would be fooled into thinking he wasn't deficient in basic logic.

downtownlad said...

mcg - So now believing that the First Amendment guarantees freech speech equals low IQ.

We have a good word for people like Mcg - Fascists.

MikeinSC said...

It's time to put Giuliani in jail - because he got a discount from the Times - and is in violation of the Campaign Finance law - at least according to Marxists like MikeinSC who no nothing about the law, and who who oppose the First Amendment.

Unlike the NYT, I didn't support the law in the first place. But, hey, don't let reality slow ya down, Sparky!

BTW, should such rampant typos be coming from somebody who promises --- HONESTLY!!! --- to not be a blithering moron.

MikeinSC also has zero problem when the military becomes a partisan organization.

Logic now joins symbolism and metaphors in the lengthy list of things you don't know a thing about.

If the military is now equivalent to the Republican party, which MikeinSC says it is, then please tell me what is the problem with opposing the military and calling its incompetent generals scumbags?

You are free to do so.

And then you can also whine about your sexuality problems with your family, which simply makes most people laugh.
-=Mike

Gedaliya said...

Folks, it simply is not correct that the NY Times can give a discount for any reason that it wants. MoveOn.org is a registered political committee as defined by the law, so it must conduct its business according to those laws---as must those who do business with it.

The NY Times is a newspaper and is protected by the First Amendment as to what it can print in its pages. I do not believe it comes under the rubric of McCain-Feingold or any other campaign finance laws.

Gedaliya said...

We have a good word for people like Mcg - Fascists.

Even worse, he's anti-"gay"....right?

MikeinSC said...

And, DTL, if you REALLY want to make things personal --- there is ample more material to mock you over than vice versa.

Just saying.
-=Mike

downtownlad said...

Mike - Don't you have some niggers that you can be lynching right now?

mcg said...

mcg - So now believing that the First Amendment guarantees freech speech equals low IQ.

No. That's good sense and I'm glad you have it. This, however, reflects low IQ:

By saying that the New York Times violated the campaign finance law with its ad about General Betrayus, you are conceding the fact that the military is now a 100% fully owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

We have a good word for people like Mcg - Fascists.

Thank goodness dolts like you have watered down that word so much through overuse as to be meaningless. Otherwise I might be offended! Nah, nevermind, it takes someone with more credibility than you to cause me offense.

MikeinSC said...

Mike - Don't you have some niggers that you can be lynching right now?

Shocking. You're a bigot.
-=Mike

downtownlad said...

I'm not the bigot. You're the one who lives in South Carolina - the most bigoted state in the nation.

You know - the one where they lynch black people for fun.

downtownlad said...

Well if the New York Times violated McCain Feingold, why don't you try bringing a lawsuit against it.

Let's see how far you get? I can tell you before you even try - you'll get nowhere.

MikeinSC said...

I'm not the bigot. You're the one who lives in South Carolina - the most bigoted state in the nation.

We're Number One! We're Number One! YAY!

Yet, the one who dropped the "n" bomb is, well, YOU.

Funny how that works, huh?

You know - the one where they lynch black people for fun.

Do you want to unleash more slurs?
-=Mike

mcg said...

The NY Times is a newspaper and is protected by the First Amendment as to what it can print in its pages.

The N.Y. Times enjoys no more protection in the First Amendment than we do. In fact, arguably less, because it is a for-profit organization. There is no doubt that campaign finance reform has abridged our free speech rights. But it abridged theirs, too.

downtownlad said...

Slurs?

Sorry - it's not a slur to call South Carolinian bigots. This is the state that went to war to keep slavery after all.

This is the state that had to be forced by the Federal Government to get rid of segregation.

In case you didn't know it - most of the nation mocks you.

That's not a slur. That's common sense.

mcg said...

Well if the New York Times violated McCain Feingold, why don't you try bringing a lawsuit against it.

I don't need to; a complaint with the F.E.C has already been filed.

Let's see how far you get? I can tell you before you even try - you'll get nowhere.

Actually, what I would really like is for it to go quite far---all the way to the Supreme Court---and for the N.Y. Times to prevail. But I don't think that's goingt to happen. For one thing, I think the recent maneuvers may have given the FEC enough wiggle room not to proceed. And yet, even if by some miracle it made it to the SC, I don't think I can trust even the Roberts court to strike down the BCRA.

MikeinSC said...

Slurs?

Sorry - it's not a slur to call South Carolinian bigots.


Idiotic, true. Not a slur, also true.

It was your decision to refer to blacks as the "n" word that was being referred to as a slur. But, hey, in your world, there are no black people.

This is the state that had to be forced by the Federal Government to get rid of segregation.

And?

In case you didn't know it - most of the nation mocks you.

At least I can be married.

Have fun.
-=Mike

mcg said...

Oh boy, I'm getting outta here :)

downtownlad said...

mcg - Are you even aware for FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

That was within 30 days of an election as well.

Sorry - but McCain Feingold does absolutely NOTHING about dictating what rates newspapers can charge. NOTHING.

Zeb Quinn said...

Context context context. The ad was anti-Patraeus and anti-war. It was not an ad that advocated for or against any candidate or ballot issue, at least not as its main purpose. If the ad pertained to somebody or something on the ballot and was an effort to sway voters then we'd have an entirely different kettle of fish.

If anybody has a filing requirement here it's not the NYT but rather the receipient of the gift, moveon.org, which, as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, certainly has filing requirements with the IRS with respect to like kind contributions. I don't see how under these facts it has any electoral commission filing requirements.

The NYT may have violated its own corporate bylaws by giving a donation here, and therefore have civil liability to its shareholders. They seem to be trying to insulate them from that accusation by claiming mistake.

mcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
downtownlad said...

At least I can be married.

That's right. To your sister.

mcg said...

DTL: did you read the relevant sections of the code I cited? Yes I'm familiar with the case you cited.

downtownlad said...

No - I missed that mcg.

MikeinSC said...

At least I can be married.

That's right. To your sister.


So, when you getting married, Sparky? Next year? Ever?
-=Mike

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mcg said...

The 30-day timeframe doesn't apply here. This isn't about an election; this is about the regulation of contributions to registered political committee.

Remember I'm coming at this as someone who doesn't think this should be the law. That doesn't make me right, by any means. But I'm not doing this just to prove a point that the NYT is e-e-e-e-e-evil, either. I think that it's enough, frankly, that the public knows that the NYT gave MoveOn a hefty discount.

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
downtownlad said...

You know MikeinSC- whenever people push me like that - it inspires me to go fool a straight woman.

I actually was talking to a girl this weekend, who I could tell liked me, but I never got a chance to tell her I was gay.

She lives out of town. Because of you - I think I'll lead her on for a few months.

Nothing like sabatoging a straight woman's love life.

Will be fun.

But getting back to the topic at hand, the FEC complaint will go nowhere. Because no law has been violated.

While we're at it - why is nobody trying ot shut down the license for FOX - since they've obviously become a partisan organization and have started censoring comments against the war. That's more of a travesty if you ask me.

MikeinSC said...

That's the entire point. This should NOT be the law --- but groups, NYT amongst them, pushed this demanding that "special interests" be removed from politics.

In the end, groups that most vocally support a law should do the least to violate it.

The law is terrible and how the SCOTUS didn't rule against it is beyond me --- but if one supported the law initially, they kinda have to follow it.
-=Mike

MikeinSC said...

You know MikeinSC- whenever people push me like that - it inspires me to go fool a straight woman.

You wouldn't fool them. Trust me.

I actually was talking to a girl this weekend, who I could tell liked me, but I never got a chance to tell her I was gay.

Might want to work on that radar thing of yours.

She lives out of town. Because of you - I think I'll lead her on for a few months.

Nothing like sabatoging a straight woman's love life.

Will be fun.


You truly are a worthless person.

While we're at it - why is nobody trying ot shut down the license for FOX - since they've obviously become a partisan organization and have started censoring comments against the war. That's more of a travesty if you ask me.

Nobody asked you. It's why you're posting at somebody else's blog.

And, hey, go ahead and pursue that lawsuit of yours.
-=Mike

downtownlad said...

Gaydar doesn't work on me.

And it's too late. She had already asked if she could stay at my place when she visits and I said yes.

Because of MikeinSC - I will now lead her on.

MikeinSC's fault, not mine. And how is it worthless for me to pursue a girl. You just encouraged me to do so if you don't recall.

Palladian said...

People, people. Do not engage the demon, as I warned you!

Because you ignored my warning, we've now been treated to the "n" bomb, and another reiteration of dtl's embarrassing psychodrama.

You're just giving him whack-off material, and grossing the rest of us out.

downtownlad said...

Palladian doesn't believe in the First Amendment either I guess.

downtownlad said...

And Palladian - MikeinSC brought up the gay issue as well, not me.

MikeinSC said...

Gaydar doesn't work on me.

Wasn't referring to "gaydar". And I thought gay guys had it. C'est la vie.

And it's too late. She had already asked if she could stay at my place when she visits and I said yes.

The only thing sadder than straight guys lying about potential conquests are gay guys lying about potential conquests.

Because of MikeinSC - I will now lead her on.

Feel free. It's your soul.

MikeinSC's fault, not mine. And how is it worthless for me to pursue a girl. You just encouraged me to do so if you don't recall.

Personal responsibility is lost on you, isn't it?

I just asked when you're going to get married.

Ever?
-=Mike

downtownlad said...

Why can't you stick to the topic at hand Mike?

Why are you opposed to the First Amendment?

downtownlad said...

56 dead soldiers in Iraq this month. That General Betrayus is doing a dandy job.

MikeinSC said...

Why can't you stick to the topic at hand Mike?

Why are you opposed to the First Amendment?


Why aren't you married yet?

I mean, I am getting married. It's lovely, got to be honest.

As for the First Amendment, I'm quite a fan of it. Allows me to ask morons like you why you're not married on blogs.
-=Mike

downtownlad said...

It's illegal to get married with bigots like you making ignoramus laws.

Like I said though - at least I don't have to marry my sister.

MikeinSC said...

It's illegal to get married with bigots like you making ignoramus laws.

Didn't make any laws. I'm just laughing at your predicament.

Like I said though - at least I don't have to marry my sister.

...though, God knows, you want to.

I mean, you are the one harping on incest and all.
-=Mike

downtownlad said...

At least none of the 56 dead Americans this month are gay.

antiphone said...

Three fucking idiots putting on a show, what a pathetic waste.

downtownlad said...

It is funny to see how Mike can't debate the actual discussion without throwing insults.

Typical.

Why is the right-wing so scared of the First Amendment. Why are they horrified by free enterprise?

Palladian said...

Ok, I'm done. Have fun helping this disgusting asshole get his kicks, Mike.

downtownlad said...

How self-loathing can you be Palladian?

Steven said...

I have no personal problem with anyone making an in-kind contribution of any size to any political organization of their choice, with exactly one exception. That exception is when the contributor advocated the laws that regulate in-kind contributions. In that case, I want the contributor nailed to the wall as painfully as the law allows and driven to admit the law was a mistake.

I don't believe in dragging people's consensual sexual history into sexual harassment suits, or setting up a court-appointed special prosecutor to badger them, similarly with one exception. That exception is when the guy hounded is the guy who enacted the law that made his sexual history admissible, and enacted the law that allowed the appointment of the prosecutor. Then he should be beaten to a bloody pulp by the implements he forged.

The man who advocates laws against cross-race marriages should be discovered to be a quarter-black, and thus have his marriage annulled under those laws, while others are left to marry freely. The man who votes to ban medical marijuana, in a just universe, will suffer glaucoma and nausea and anything else medical marijuana could cure. And so on.

So, yes, I want to see the FEC come down on the New York Times so hard that Pinch Schulzberger's teeth rattle. And then see the FEC spend the next ten years exclusively harassing every other advocate of campaign finance reform in existence, until its unconstitutional speech-supressing ass is finally shot off by the Supreme Court.

Which will require a Supreme Court a lot more right-wing than this one, since liberal Supreme Court Justices seem to have this delusion the First Amendment is there to protect on-stage masturbation but not political speech.

downtownlad said...

Except Steven - the little itty bitty fact that this has nothing to do with Campaign Finance Reform.

Unless you think that the Petreaus is part of the Republican party.

Which he is of course. And which is the real problem.

mcg said...

DTL, you keep trying that line of argument but it really doesn't fly. After all, it was Congress who demanded in its legislation that Petraeus appear on Sept. 10/11 (and of course, the President who agreed to it by signing the bill). Petraeus could be a donut salesman and his appearance would be a political act by nature of the people who called him there.

But more importantly, the CFR issue at play here has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the advertisement. Zilcho! It has everything to do with the legal status of the entity known as MoveOn.org. If Petraeus were a donut salesman, and Dunkin Donuts took out a full-page ad preemptively challenging his testimony, and the NYT gave them a discount on that advertisement---the CFR wouldn't apply. It is entirely because of the exact legal status of MoveOn.org that makes CFR relevant.

mcg said...

Hmm, I must be hungry.

Gahrie said...

dtl:

I actually was talking to a girl this weekend, who I could tell liked me, but I never got a chance to tell her I was gay.

She lives out of town. Because of you - I think I'll lead her on for a few months.

Nothing like sabatoging a straight woman's love life.

Will be fun.


You can quit trying so hard. we know you are an immature asshole.

downtownlad said...

The law says absolutely nothing about what an organization can be charged for advertising rates. If the New York Times wanted to charge them $1, they could. They are a for profit enterprise, and they have every incentive to maximize profit - which I am certain they did in this case.

And the wingnuts can only pretend mock horror from this ad, because they are unable to debate the real facts on the ground - that the Iraq War is a waste of money with zero defined end goals

downtownlad said...

Too late gahrie - when I'm determined I'm determined.

And don't think this is just talk. I WILL lead her on. And solely because MikeinSC dared me to.

AlphaLiberal said...

Bruce Hayden makes an interesting argument.
"The problem is that active military cannot defend themselves. When you attack Kerry's or Bush's military service, they are fully able to defend themselves. "

However, this is false. Gen Petreaus writes op-eds, one six weeks before the 2004 election inappropriately boosting Bush's position. He also does TV shows, testifies in front of Congress and can make a public address. The general has hardly been neutered.

"The Washington Post, 9/26/04
Battling for Iraq

BYLINE: David H. Petraeus
SECTION: Editorial; B07
LENGTH: 1239 words
DATELINE: BAGHDAD
Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up. "


Sounds like a man who can field criticisms of his work and his report card on his work.

MoveOn republished this piece of electioneering here at MoveOn.org.

mcg said...

The law says absolutely nothing about what an organization can be charged for advertising rates.

DTL, I encourage you to read the portions of the code I have cited. The law explicitly discusses discounts given to political organizations. No, it doesn't discuss advertising in particular, because it is far more general than that.

Here's a portion from 11 C.F.R. 100.52(d)(1):

The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual or normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution... If goods or services are provided at less than the usual and normal charge, the amount of the in-kind contribution is the difference between the usual and normal charge for goods or services at the time of the contribution and the amount charged the political committee."

By the N.Y. Times own admission it undercharged MoveOn.org by over $77K. Corporations are forbidden under the law to make any contributions to organizations like MoveOn.

Gahrie said...

DtL:

And don't think this is just talk. I WILL lead her on. And solely because MikeinSC dared me to.

Just to be clear, you are bragging about your intentions to deliberately inflict emotional pain on a completely innocent person to provide yourself some sick sense of satisfaction, correct?

mcg said...

And we thought the left was all concerned about civilian casualties!

MikeinSC said...

It is funny to see how Mike can't debate the actual discussion without throwing insults.

At no point have you ever been able to have a discussion. I feel no need to waste my energy trying to have a discussion with the likes of you.

Typical.

Why is the right-wing so scared of the First Amendment. Why are they horrified by free enterprise?


You know what it's like to get married?

Didn't think so.
-=Mike

MikeinSC said...

And don't think this is just talk. I WILL lead her on. And solely because MikeinSC dared me to.

You mistake Mike for somebody who cares what you do. You could swallow a bullet and my life wouldn't be altered.
-=Mike

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 219   Newer› Newest»