Redstate

_discounts for ideological reasons_

I haven't seen any evidence of this. Have you?

where there is smoke, the ny times is on fire with this. They claim the ad rate was for being able to run it not on a specific date, but the ad clearly states that this ad would only be good on Sept 10th. That's a little coincidental, don't you think?

It's not evidence, but pretty damning IMO.

Oh and Recommended.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

"no" evidence, when what they mean is that they don't find the evidence persuasive.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

IANAL, but I watch CSI :)

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

The NYT makes money largely through advertising. If some "wink wink" deal were made to sell the ad at the standby rate while actually informally promising a specific date of placement, it could just as easily have been for business reasons as due to ideological symphathies. I guess this is an eye of the beholder kind of thing. If one is convinced that the NYT WOULD act in that way for that reason, the coincidence is more than enough proof. I say it's possible, but I'm far from certain. Maybe 50-50.

oh, and Darin, thanks for the Recommend. I think this "winners & losers" conversation could be fun and interesting if it gets some attention.

(I don't want it to get too distracted by focusing too much on the NYT's discount, though, although that's fair game for a while).

like this and that newspapers should be able to charge what they want to whomever they want? And that their should be no campaign finance laws except restrictions on accepting foreign money?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

That's threadjack territory. Won't go there. If you want to discuss that, drop me an email.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

lol. Seriously, email me if you want to discuss offline.

I would note that the nyt business model isn't run to actually make money, though. Seeing how they are doing a darn good job of running that paper into the ground. Heh.

Though I see where you are coming from here, as when I worked for a DotBomb (as an accountant) I argued with a salesman about a deal he was trying to do (at 300,000 BELOW cost). I asked why he would do a deal that we lost money on and his response was "if I don't do it at this price, I will lose the deal." My reasoning that the company was better off NOT doing the deal was completely lost on him. Aahhhh the day where revenue was all that mattered and profit be darned.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

experience with salesmen. That is why companies should never let the salesmen out of the cage.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Something else just occurred to me re: the "coincidental" timing. It could have been that MoveOn provide the Times with a couple of different versions of the ad, one that refered to Petraeus' testimony "today" (if it ran on the day of the testimony, as it did), another that read "tomorrow" to be used if the ad ran the day prior to the testimony, etc. Just a thought (and something that would be smart to do if the actual date were uncertain)

they had done that, then I would assume the nyt would have leaked that copy.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Fair point. I would think so too, particularly if they were challenged on the wording (the "today" word) and the timing, given that the ad was purchased as standby, but I don't know if anyone asked them about that connection. Do you?

but then again, I can't imagine they are oblivious to the controversy surrounding that particular ad.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Here ya go (from NY Times below). A very plausible explanation. Honestly, I just got this and didn't know of it prior to my previous comments about the "today" word.

Critics have said that the MoveOn ad, which ran last Monday, was not subject to “standby” rules because it used the word “today” in the text, suggesting advance knowledge that the ad would run on Monday, when General Petraeus began his testimony to Congress.

But Mr. Jespersen said that the advertising department routinely notifies advertisers a day in advance that the ad will run in the next day’s paper. And at that point, he said, “the advertiser can make minor changes in the text.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/cheney-jumps-into-fray-ove...

It still comes down to believing they are telling the truth or not (if they are lying, why reason do they have to come forward with the truth now, is this another lie?). So it's a he said/he said. It doesn't bother me at all if they gave MoveOn a discount with a wink & nod (though this same paper pushed for that law). I just enjoy that the nyt got to go through the wringer for a little while. So sure, it's plausible, but still it's just as plausible the other way. Couldn't happen to a better paper rag bird cage liner.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Come on, now. Think about this. If the NYT did NOT, as a regular practice, give standby advertisers that notice, with the ability to change text of the ad accordingly, do you really think they would say so (i.e., lie)?? Don't you think that would be an ENORMOUS, STUPID risk, given how many advertisers there must be out there who could expose such a lie (i.e., if they had not received such notification with such an option to adjust text)?? Come on, man. That just don't make sense. Face it: the "today" point doesn't hold water. Let's have some objectivity here.

print as all the news that's fit to print from Duranty thru bushlied.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

We're still on plausibility, and frankly, the nyt has lied so much in the past I'm not ready to believe a word they say. The only worse publication out there is the new republic.

So what I'm saying is that yes, all the things you have pointed out could be true and yet, they still could have given moveon a wink & nod and a discounted rate. We'll just agree to disagree I guess.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

I think there's a substantial chance (I'd say 50-75%) they gave them a wink & nod re: the timing. I have no way to know one way or another if such a wink and nod would have been due to being sympathetic with the cause and message, as opposed to wanting to sell an ad, and I'll say 50% chance of that. So I'm at a 25% - 32.5% chance that they gave MoveOn favorable treatment due for political reasons.

As for the point we were just discussing, though, I'm afraid I can't just agree to disagree. It is IMPLAUSIBLE that they would claim to have that practice if they didn't, given that there are thousands of advertisers who have placed standby ads, any one of whom could quickly expose the lie. That would be so incredibly stupid it's just not reasonable to think it's likely that the NY Times would put forth such a lie. Whether you like them or not, they're not that stupid.

oops, 25% - 37.5% chance

They are so poor they couldn't even defeat a pro-war Bush loving senator in Connecticut.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

abolutely peak news day, bumping, say, the previously placed add for the patio furniture clearance sale at Macy's. Nothing extraordinary about that. Wink, Wink!

And Ernie Banks' long lost twin bashed him for it on RedState.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/09/17/bc.bba.bluejays...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Don't worry, Ernie. You did it as a human, not some lab experiment.

Not to mention you also did it with a higher mound, bigger ballparks, no watered-down pitching quality from league expansion, no extra at-bats due to a DH, and maybe a less lively ball.

Not to mention doing it without the league importing the finest pitchers from Mexico, Canada, Japan, the Dominican, Cuba, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, Korea, China, and anyplace else kids can get a stick and a ball.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

yeah, partly my fault. ok, ballgame over.

I guess either you didn't read what I said, or you don't believe me when I say I like Giuliani and that he's tied for my top choice. I just try to be objective regardless of whom I support or like. If a guy I like does something I think is bad, I try not to let my support of him cloud my judgment on that specific matter, and I don't refrain from calling a spade a spade.

I just thought you sounded needlessly harsh, hey he is a politician, of course he is going to try to capitalize on any mistake by an opponent.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I've been harsh because it bothers me that that kind of dumbed down, cheap political tactic works and distracts people from real issues and a substantive evaluation of the candidates. We should all react to that kind of political theater -- clowning, actually -- with a "gimme a break" reaction. We're not children or some mindless mob. This is just Jerry Springer stuff. We are facing huge issues (security, economics, etc.) that will have great impact on our future, and we deserve better than this silly clowning.

Having said all that, sure, most candidates would do similar things if they thought of it and thought they'd benefit from it. The Romney folks are probably kicking themselves over not thinking of it first. Probably ditto with McCain, Thompson, and the others if their budgets provided (except Paul, of course). And of course the Dems would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. But Giuliani did it this time, and seems to do it more than most (perhaps tied by Romney), although perhaps because he just thinks of it first.

at least he is the fast thinking candidate.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Betcha dollars to doughnuts the Giuliani team didn't spend a minute talking about how their response would be an important contribution to the GWOT and spent all their time talking about it as a campaign tactic to get the rabble roused and score some cheap political points with the base. I have no evidence for that contention; just my strong suspicion based on following campaigns (including Rudy's this year) and politicians for a couple of decades.

If Rudy does get elected president he has got to keep doing this. Rudy seems to get the word out, and fast, and would use the bully pulpit effectively. If someone else gets elected president they have to do the same thing.

This constant chorus, "Bush lied, people died." is terrible and untrue. Senator Santorum got some information declassified and released that our troops found OVER 500 WMD's in Iraq!! Media publish it very little and the White House hasn't done a lot to publicize this information either.

It is way more important to do the right thing for America than to help yourself politically - but if doing the right thing for America also helps you politically, that's fine.

If MoveOn.org was just some bunch of kooky college professors, there could be some validity in your characterization of scoring "cheap political points." The important distinction you miss is that leading Democratic politicians suck up to MoveOn.

There will always be haters on the fringes our society, but when political leaders suck up to them for their votes or campaign bucks, that lends legitimacy to their tactics and pollutes the mainstream. The way to keep the haters marginalized, where they belong, is to inflict political costs on those politicians who give them mainstream legitimacy.

If some marginalized group of nostalgic segregationists wants to rant about rampant miscegenation, it would be silly for politicians to pay any attention to them. If however some Republican politicians try to curry favor with them in pursuit of votes, like Trent Lott and Bob Barr did with the Conservative Citizens Council in the 90's, it's good for America when Democrats and other Republicans denounce them. The segregationists really enjoyed feeling respectable with mainstream politicians schmoozing with them; shaming Lott and Barr into subsequently avoiding the CCC like the plague put those racists back on the fringes where they belonged.

It will take a lot more than this flap to similarly make Democrats decide the political costs exceed the benefits of whoring themselves to extremists like MoveOn. But every time some politician, like Giuliani here, can do something that makes the politics of hate a little more costly to its enablers, that's an improvement in America's political health.

Similarly it's good for America's political health that politicians benefit from smacking down the haters. The more politicians see it in their own interest to confront extremists and their enablers, the better. So I'm fine with Giuliani seeing this as a political opportunity, and wish other Republicans had been as shrewd.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

That was a well-argued point. Yes, there is some benefit to what he did, and I don't think your view is unreasonable, but I still believe that the costs outweigh the benefits when a candidate engages in such tactics for -- yes -- cheap political points. I just think it dumbs down debate and diverts attention from real issues and more substantive evaluation of the candidates. This was a huge week for the Iraq debate, and look how much attention was siphoned off for this relatively unimportant sideshow (or perhaps it even became the main event). Plus it enables Giuliani (and anyone else who employs such sensational, rabble-rousing tactics) to increase his attractiveness for reasons that really don't matter as much as his positions on issue and his qualifications. So I guess we can agree to disagree on how the costs and benefits net out (if you even think there are any costs, which you may not).

aided smackdown of Kerry in 2004 and the historically small year six election victory in 2006.

Future huge weeks in Iraq and the GWOT were made more possible by Rudy's smackdown of Hillary this week.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

And also a personal vindication for the Vietnam veterans. After being slimed by Kerry, and having to deal with many people who believed Kerry's lies about them, it must have been a well deserved feeling of satisfaction to the Vietnam veterans knowing they made the difference preventing Kerry from becoming President.

I agree if Giuliani hadn't attacked Clinton for her complicity and active participation in trying to score cheap political points accusing Gen. Petraeus of treason, some small fraction of the TV time spent covering that might have been spent covering the military issues in Petraeus' report. But far more of that TV time would have been spent rewarding MoveOn's and Clinton's McCarthyite tactics, "analyzing" how those attacks reflected the military's loss of credibility with the American public.

We can't have a reasoned debate about the proper approach to Iraq when the coverage is dominated by politicians sucking up to hateful extremists, and that's treated as a reasonable position. We can't have a reasoned debate as long as the leading politicians opposing the war resort to hateful ad hominem lies about their opponents. The way to make the Democrats abandon their core tactic of ad hominem lies is to make it counter-productive, and only then will the Democrats rely on reasoned argument to make their case; that won't happen unless more politicians fight back against hate like Giuliani did.

Plus it enables Giuliani (and anyone else who employs such sensational, rabble-rousing tactics) to increase his attractiveness for reasons that really don't matter as much as his positions on issue and his qualifications.

An essential qualification for the next Commander in Chief is the ability to effectively prosecute the war. Part of that ability is being a competent politician who can effectively stand up to those demagogues trying to prevent victory. Giuliani's response to MoveOn and Clinton demonstrates one skill that is absolutely essential for the next Commander in Chief. Bush's inadequacies on that qualification have almost resulted in an Al Qaeda victory in Iraq.

give in to the master issue framer very often. I think its our duty not to let BR get comfortable lest he get lazy. Its like John Edwards. He was so effective at framing the issue down to what fetuses channelled to him rather than whether doctors were negligent. Then he got lazy and became a politician.)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

No chance of me becoming like John Edwards. I'm much more sincere and much less attractive (based on what I hear WOMEN say about Edwards...of course, I have no idea personally how good-looking he is...ahem...How 'bout those Bears?)

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I respect your view and you argue it well. I still simply disagree with the net effect (benefits vs. costs). I think the approach to the MoveOn ad (and to Clinton's remark) that would be most conducive to "reasoned debate" on Iraq would be for politicians/candidates to say it's highly inappropriate and offensive and then, if you'll pardon the phrase, move on, as opposed to turning into a great big Jerry Springer chair throwing spectacle that distracts everyone from real issues and other substantive matters. So we see it differently, and I definitely disagree with you, but again, I don't think your view is unreasonable.