From the FEC’s “Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees”, under the subhead “discounts”:
If a corporation or labor organization sells goods or services to a political committee at a price below the usual or normal charge, a prohibited contribution results in the amount of the discount. 100.52(d). A reduced price is not considered a contribution, however, if it is offered by the vendor in the ordinary course of business and at the same amount charged to nonpolitical clients. See, e.g., AO 1989-14.
Notes Karl Maher:
MoveOn.org Political Action is a Political Action Committee, which is regulated by the Federal Elections Commission. It is NOT a 527 regulated by the IRS. The latter can accept unlimited contributions; the former, not.
PACs may not accept contributions from corporations. Further, they may not accept contributions in excess of $5,000. The value of the discount MoveOn received was on the order of $100,000.
[…]
It seems to me that the price the NYT charged to Freedom’s Watch, as well as the price they quoted the Washington Times, puts the discount out of the range of the ordinary course of business.
So the question once again is, was the discount offered by the NYT to MoveOn.org within the parameters of discounts given in the “ordinary course of business?
And will we ever know anyway, given that the Times will (as is their prerogative) comment only generally on their advertising pricing policies?
For my part, I’d be fine with the NYT openly advocating for its political fellow travelers — provided they were willing to admit upfront to their political biases. And as I wrote in a comment to my earlier post, this wouldn’t be an issue at all had the Times not displayed a demonstrable history of shading its reporting.
But so long as they continue to hide their advocacy beneath the shroud of “objectivity,” they should exact some price for violating that (unspoken, but still largely taught) contract with their readership.
And that’s why it matters.
However, being no supporter of McCain-Feingold myself, I’d just as soon it be informed readers — and not the government — who exact that price by canceling subscriptions, or by regularly pointing out how the Times has turned into a mouthpiece for a particular ideology.
****
More, from Gabriel Malor.
****
update, Sept. 14:: From USA TODAY :
Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani this morning got what he demanded yesterday from The New York Times: The right to run a full-page ad in the newspaper attacking both the liberal group MoveOn.org Political Action for saying that Gen. David Petraeus might better be known as “General Betray Us” and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for her alleged “commitment to defending MoveOn.org.” Plus, Giuliani got the same “discount” ad rate that MoveOn paid for its “Betray Us” ad on Monday.
This morning, the Times reports that MoveOn paid what the newspaper says is the “standby” rate for its full page ad: About $65,000, which is considerably less than the nearly $182,000 that a full-priced full-page ad can cost in the newspaper. But, according to the Times, that is a typical price charged to advocacy groups for an ad they want to run on a specific day — if they’re willing to put up with not getting a guarantee that the ad will run on that day.
Anybody else find it odd that a PAC flush with capital would take a chance on “standby” on a very time-specific ad?
Seems dubious, but who knows — perhaps MoveOn.org received assurances that there would almost certainly be room for their ad even if purchased on standby. The NYT stock price being what it is and all.
Now if only both parties could show this kind of frugality with our tax dollars, we’d all be better off.
EEK!
LINK CLEANUP, AISLE 1!
Thanks!
“However, being no supporter of McCain-Feingold myself, I’d just as soon it be informed readers  and not the government  who exact that price…”
Yeah, but it sure would be fun seeing them, as witheld once so eloquently put it, “foist on their own regard”.
Everybody’s allowed a few personal crotchets, right? One of mine is John McCain. I just plain don’t like the guy.
But situations like this make me think more highly of him.
Campaign contributions are mostly public record these days, and if you look back at those records for recent elections a striking pattern emerges: Republicans, party of the fatcats and the Military-Industrial Complex, get mostly modest-sized contributions. The bulk of Republican campaign funds come in amounts that are credible for, say, a guy who runs a tire shop or half a dozen fast food restaurants, tops. Democrats, the party of the Little People, get the bulk of their funds from a few big donors, five, six, even seven figure numbers. Note that this a tendency, not an absolute — Republicans get a few big donations, and Democrats get lots of little ones, but if you add up the figures and divide by the total you’ll see what I mean. John Ringo first pointed that out to me, way back in 2000, and the pattern hasn’t changed since except to make the comparison more lopsided.
For the record, I think the McCain-Feingold law is a restriction on free speech that ought to be unconstitutional even if it isn’t. But look what it’s doing to Democrats now that it’s fully in place and rolling. Gigantic contributions are questionable at best, and often illegal; if it can be proven that the NYT gave MoveOn a discount of that size when it doesn’t offer similar deals to others, both organizations are in a world of hurt under the campaign finance laws, and the Norman Hsu story has yet to unravel fully.
It’s certainly still possible that a combination of political partisanship and doubts about Constitutionality will make it possible for, e.g., the FBI to sweep things under the rug, or the FEC to look the other way. But if they don’t, or even if all they let go is the current style of stories, it puts Democrats in the position of either denouncing their own platform (“Get the money out of politics!” — as if there was ever anything else in politics) or watching their campaign funds dry up.
This is fun. I need to buy more microwave popcorn.
Regards,
Ric
See PowerLine for Rudy’s request for an equivalent discount. Can Pinch be tried for treason, by the way?
– Not to drain the glee of watching typical covert Leftism run amok, Hillery decided to try to top that bit of feclessness with a monumental “in your face Rethuglicans” of her own, today naming Sandy Berger, yes THAT Sandy Berger, as one of her foreign policy advisers. The worst case of naked wanton quid pro quo possible in the history of the Republic. Nothing like hiring a felon synchophant whenever you need to rally the morally superior memebers of your cult.
“provided they were willing to admit upfront to their political biases.”
Yes, they must admit their bias. Maybe they could have a page somewhere in the middle that gives the editors’ opinions on various political matters. They shall call it the “Editorial Page.” Novel, I know, but only then will we know where the paper truly stands.
BTW, any of the sleuths in the nutosphere come up with Freedom Watch’s supposedly steep rate for their full-pager?
“Johnny Ringo is an educated man. Now I know I hate him.”
The Dems, for a long long time, carefully crafted this narrative that they are the party of the working man, while at the same time, being funded by gigantic labor unions, trial lawyers, Hollywood, and the incredibly rich. McCain Feingold, one of its few positive aspects, brings that into focus.
Since Pres. Bush has shown no desire to fight back, I have a sinking feeling that this will simply slide into the memory hole, until someone is willing to do something about it in the future.
The most noxious aspect of McCain Feingold is the fact that on a daily basis, their fish-wrap was a wall to wall advertisement for Kerry/Edwards, yet it was protected as part of the media, the only ones allowed to opine prior to the election. As a result, if forced to, I would vote for McCain over the Dems currently running, but that says more about the Dems than my dislike of McCain.
Settembrini – Yup, they just report the facts. No bias. No editorial creep into alleged “news” stories. None. They are as pure as vetigal virgins.
“Yes, they must admit their bias. Maybe they could have a page somewhere in the middle that gives the editors’ opinions on various political matters. They shall call it the “Editorial Page.†Novel, I know, but only then will we know where the paper truly stands.”
You could have just saved some time and said “LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS LALALALALALA”
– The next time a ProgDork tries to deny media bias, after you get through laughing in their face, you can tell him the Left morons just gave us 120,000 pieces of irrefutable proof.
Couldn’t the shareholders do something about this? Surely one of those class action plaintiffs firms could go after them like they go after the rest of “big business”.
Isn’t settembrini the Italian word for douchebag?
Actually, I think it was an Italian intellectual who was wrongfully imprisoned for his dangerous ideas, sentenced to death, but then ultimately freed. He may have become an Italian Senator, or other similar type position of nobility, after his ultimate release. My memory is not so great, and I do not feel like looking it up, but my gut tells me I am pretty close.
If not douchebag, certainly douchenozzle.
I can see the header on the new NYSlimes, ‘We Shill For The Democrat Party’.
From Balloon Juice: “In fact, all the speculation to date has amounted to little more than ‘GEE- that sure seems like a big discount to me! There must be something wrong!’”
Amazing how little self-awareness lefties have when it comes to their own scandal du jour, but the boiling down they apply to opposition scandals.
Tomorrow, I am going to call and find out the full page ad rate for a weekday, though I suspect they will not give me one over the phone after this dust-up.
WSJ full page b/w: 198,636
USAT full page b/w: 111,140
Don’t have a number for NYT though.
happyfeet – So the figure used earlier, around $179,000, seems like it would be right in the ballpark, yes?
happyfeet – I just had a nice visit to your town. Great food.
Balloon Juice: Intellectually incurious?
But that’s just it. Should they be able to keep their bias to the editorial pages, there wouldn’t be a problem. But when it spills over into straight news — and even advertising — there’s where they run into problems.
Incidentally, I haven’t claimed to do any sleuthing. But as I’ve said several times now, the NYT has shown itself to be willing to practice advocacy journalism, so they set themselves up for these kinds of questions.
I got a quote from the NYT on a full page ad:
Ted Kennedy: Senator or Big Flabby Booze Pickle?
$350K
“Couldn’t the shareholders do something about this?”
The smarter Class A share holders are doing something – the stock hit a 52 week low today on heavy volume. The Sulzberger family’s Class B stock controls the makeup of the board of directors, which means that Ponce can thumb his nose at the Class A group with impunity.
Here is a nice chart which reflects Paunch’s stewardship of the Times. The family should have bought him a nice ski shop in Vail.
JD – seems about right to me – the WSJ delivers a much harder-to-reach demographic, and USAT relies on lots of alternative distribution to pad their circ (meaning not everyone who “gets” USAT reads it).
Studio City – great food? Mostly I’d guess we’re known for sushi.
This is the NYT Co business unit page. Avoiding their websites would be ouchful for them if you wanted to do good, especially if you’re a NetRatings panelist, the About site I know is selling lots on a pay-for-click model, so posting links to crap there would be especially contraindicated. I’ve never actually seen anyone post a link to there though that I can think of. You can look here for a little more detail.
Not Studio City, but LA and Old Towne Pasadena.
Does the USA Today count amongst their circulation all of the free ones given out in hotels?
Gee, that balloon piss bloog reads just like the Huffinglue Post.
Simple solution; Just give AEI equal time and comparable ad pricing.
BTW, in case you didn’t know Bush is fulminating more slippery lies
about his intent to re-deploy, or is that why you chose the above topic?
“The smarter Class A share holders are doing something – the stock hit a 52 week low today on heavy volume. The Sulzberger family’s Class B stock controls the makeup of the board of directors, which means that Ponce can thumb his nose at the Class A group with impunity.”
This is the type of news that makes me all atwitter inside.
I for one don’t “lament” what the Times has become, since I think it’s been nothing more than a bad case of yellow journalism for the left for years, No, I’d much rather just see it die as an institution. Nothing would make me happier.
No, he chose it because it’s timely and relevant.
Idiot.
“For my part, I’d be fine with the NYT openly advocating for its political fellow travelers  provided they were willing to admit upfront to their political biases.”
I mostly agree, but there’s also the issue of the Times’ position on “campaign finance reform”. If I violate McCain-Feingold, that’s one thing, because I think that law’s an unconstitutional piece of crap and therefor feel no obligation to obey it. If the Times breaks McCain-Feingold, that’s quite another thing, because they’ve repeatedly and openly advocated that we should all have to live by these God-awful rules about “in-kind contributions” and the like.
JD – Yes – the free stuff counts, though they have to break it out – broadly, it gets reported as Home Delivery and Mail / Single Copy Sales / Other. This is a good overview. Go here if you want to get comprehensive.
Harry Reid chose NPR to whine to first about the President’s speech. Just to note that somewheres.
Hey, Cleo —
Has anybody told you to fuck off lately?
No?
My apologies, and fuck off.
You know, every time I click over to Balloon Juice, I regret it. Amazing how you can accuse everyone of being biased and reactionary, all the while being (yourself) biased and reactionary. It’s all ironical and shit.
Ah, yes. See the hallway just outside my hotel room door. Lots of potential eyeballs out there that never materialize.
As for the Grey Lady, get the FEC on her ass. Pinch is determined to run it into the ground, and I say we help him along.
Pablo – The FEC has been feckless previously, and heaven forbid they stand up to the largest, most influential paper in the country. Can you imagine all of the BS 1st Amendment arguments that they would toss out there, even though this is commercial speech? However, since Soros recently was tagged with a giant fine from the FEC, this may play towards a repeat offender on a large scale way of thinking, or a good way to send out a message to the rest of the media. In all of my years, I had never considered that the media might have different prices for differing ideologies. If that turns out to be the case, there will be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, objective proof of bias, not that the proof does not exist now.
Are we talking about Fairness Doctrine proponents? Fuck ’em.
What the hell happened to Cole, anyway? Didn’t always agree with him, but these days he’s in Ye Olde Chamber of Self-Satisfaction (with the optional Oubliette: Wingnuts and Reason; for the Use of). Did Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld pull a roofie train on him?
The man used to be open-minded and decent. When did he, as South Park put it, fall in love with the smell of his own farts? I know it’s been going on for some time, but haven’t nailed down the precipitating event.
Balloon Juice: Like kryptonite to lucid.
Uh, guys —
McCain-Feingold was designed very specifically to increase the influence of the media and to restrict the responsiveness of its targets. Shit says “McCain” right on it.
And Wikipedia used to have a good couple paragraphs about Soros’s pushing of the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,” much of which is now law (and regulation) under other names. It doesn’t anymore.
Pushing this case can only make explicit the exemptions that are now merely obvious. Want that? The FEC knows who Daddy is.
“If the Times breaks McCain-Feingold, that’s quite another thing, because they’ve repeatedly and openly advocated that we should all have to live by these God-awful rules about “in-kind contributions†and the like.”
So you’re saying there might be some HYPOCRISY
here go
also
Is all very clandestine and sneaky.
“If the Times breaks McCain-Feingold, that’s quite another thing, because they’ve repeatedly and openly advocated that we should all have to live by these God-awful rules about “in-kind contributions†and the like.”
So you’re saying there might be some HYPOCRISY implied there? :)
Then again, maybe they are just morally weak. You know, they have great moral standards but are just unable to fully live up to them. ;)
I agree with Carin about Balloon Juice. I resist and I resist, then Jeff or someone links/responds to John, I click over and I just can’t stand it.
Remember when John Cole used to be reasonable? Remember when, even if you disagreed with him, you could count on a fair analysis, with a strong bullshit detector built in? Sadly, I do. I’ve watched him slide down the path from annoyed/angry with the GOP (I actually agree with him there), to reactionary crank, to almost full-blown batshit crazy DU prophet. He now routinely throws out pejorative terms like they add some sort of intellectual heft to his hollow arguments, routinely giving a pass to the shenanigans of the left while decrying anything and everything on the right.
If he were still an honest arbiter- he isn’t- of the truth, his bullshit detector would constantly be in the red from the never ending stream of crap spilling from his keyboard. On the plus side though, he’s deluded himself into believing that the approving links he gets from Indymedia, DU and the Kos Kidz means he’s righteous and relevant. He is neither. And while I hope that he stops huffing glue once Bush has left the White House, my guess is that he won’t.
Ay caramba — have I stumbled into the HYPOCRISY wars? My bad. I’ll take back my whole comment if it means we don’t have to get into the whole is-it-or-isn’t-it-hypocrisy foofaraw.
“…And while I hope that he stops huffing glue once Bush has left the White House, my guess is that he won’t.”
– There is ever mounting evidence that BDS is a terminal desease, irreversably destructive to intellectual honesty. Apparently, once you jetison morality, and principles, elevated site meter counts substitute quite nicely as the new holy grail for the Left.
Giant fine?
750K is what percentage of 135 million?
People change. People with an audience change more self-consciously though. I think it’s safe to draw the inference that this guy did not like himself very much before, and now he thinks he’s both more like who he wants to be and more like he thinks they want him to be. That’s why his comments section is so fascinating and embarrassing and kind of sad. It’s hard not to think of that old disney cartoon with the hippo in a tutu. Hyacinth Hippo. The real Hyacinth died when he got bonked in the head by a discus while he was showing off for Apollo. It’s a cautionary tale I think.
We know that, psychologizer. But the law doesn’t say that; it uses nebulous terms like “corporation or labor organization” to weasel around it. We could wonder whether that’s a screwup or a deep plot by the people who wrote it, but however it came to be it’s there. Explicit press exemptions exist, but they’re far too weak to cover the situation of selling an ad at fire-sale prices.
So it really all depends whether or not we’ve got an Anslinger at the FEC.(1) If the chief and/or enough of the lawyers working there are anxious to establish themselves as Caped Crusaders For Right And Justice®, there is plenty of slop in the law to make Pinch into an Example; Don’t do this at home, boys and girls! For once, bureaucratic empire building might work to our benefit.
Regards,
Ric
(1) For those who don’t know, Henry J. Anslinger was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during [alcohol] Prohibition, in charge of the Secret Service. He was incredibly jealous of J. Edgar Hoover’s growing reputation as chief of the “G-Men” of the FBI, because up to then the Secret Service was the only national police force — it was established to chase down counterfeiters; protecting the President came later. Anslinger promoted the prohibition of marijuana as an issue he could use to get equal fame for himself and his guys. Didn’t work out for him, but the laws are still there.
LOL. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. We’ll just leave it as you had it: The Times wants to enforce McCain-Feingold for everyone except the Times. :)
Hippo in a tutu?
Hey, no thread hijacking… discussing Code Pink’s being removed from the Petraeus hearings is another topic entirely
Uncle Jimbo of Blackfive filed an FEC complaint against NYT and MoveOn.
Who cares if it is hypocritical? From what Jeff and Karl outlined, it is likely illegal.
hypocritical in a tutu
Or deluded into thinking it’s bringing in traffic — and “deluded” would be the correct term, as his traffic during the period was less that Jeff’s, which is saying a lot, given the time Jeff had to take off.
BTW, in a former life, when I was considering a career in DC, I drafted regulations for the FEC. I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert post-BCRA, though. But if I have time on Friday, I may look into the issue.
In response to the question that must naturally occur to those surprised that I would have worked for the FEC, the answer is, “Yes, she was smokin’ hot, but it didn’t work out.” I do have some funny FEC stories though.
– But was she really smoking hot in a tutu…..because, you know, that would really be teh junk…..
My knee-jerk reaction: advertising should be considered a special case because it’s something the NYT is allowed to give away for free to a PAC.
Hi Jeff, et al. Long time reader, first time poster.
While not totally unheard of, a discount that deep ought to raise a few red flags.
That said, and this part is grudgingly said, it wouldn’t be a probably wouldn’t be a violation unless they refused the same offer (under similar circumstances) to others. It sounds like they charged FreedomWatch more and if so, then that’s where the violation comes in. If the NYT gave MoveOn one rate and then, on a similar ad – same day, same size, same location, etc – gave a different one to FreedomWatch then that should result in a fine to both NYT and MoveOn.
It’s wrong but not illegal…yet.
PT
I suppose the only difference between a cut-rate ad and letting MoveOn have free space is that it preserves the newspaper’s appearance of impartiality. And the whole point of campaign finance reform laws is that we’re supposed to know who is supporting whom.
If the newspaper wants to give away space for free, and admit it, that’s completely permissible because it’s not deceitful, and newspapers have 1st Amendment rights to print things. But the NYT didn’t just do that, it lied to the public by making it appear as if MoveOn paid the full price.
Maybe that should be a basis for liability. You just know Dims would be all over Fox News or the WSJ if one of those groups got caught doing this.
Maybe that should be a basis for liability.
I disagree. The NYT hasn’t exactly wronged anyone, here. What they’ve done, though, if all is as it appears, is violate FEC regs that should apply to everyone, equally. Of course, the regs themselves are an abomination, but that’s no excuse for not enforcing them. I’d rather see them enforced to the point of pain and then removed from the law books than see them persist, unenforced, until such time as it’s convenient for someone to enforce them.
JD: Sorry about this late comment about Settembrini’s assertions concerning NYT truthiness and objectivity, but I cannot resist posting. From this article in the NYT is this impossible-to-diagram sentence:
.
It seems that the Times must have an editorial policy about reporting upon Al Qaeda in Iraq that denies Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Unbiased? Heh.
—
Hat tip to James Taranto’s Best of the Web
Let’s be clear: NO ONE is accusing the New York Times of being unbiased.
Email sent to all registered moveon.org supporters today:
“We want to make sure we’re on the same page as you are, as we move forward in this campaign. Please take a moment and let us know how you feel we are doing.”
– After Rudi’s retort in a full page ad today asking who voters think they should listen to, an honored 4 star general, or a Democrat running for president on a defeatist platform, this is probably a weak kneed scrammble for cover in response to her pointed phone call threatening to rip off their nuts.
– Followup Email from the good folks at moveon:
“This is just the beginning, and will be followed with the next round of Ad’s based on the Theme of “George Bush, betrayer of America”. Let us know what you think.”
– Expect bumper stickers to follow:
“RATE OUR DISSING” (call 1-800-FUCK-GWB)
Here’s a little song and slideshow dedicated to the new meia, overthrowing the old
Jason Blair, what is you darn paper doing now?
http://cruxy.com/stores/pubstoreDetailVideo.jsp?id=11244
and wasn’t MoveOn started as an answer to the Lewinsky Affair?
here’s Hillary’s Lament (with apologies to Frank Loesser)
http://cruxy.com/stores/pubstoreDetailVideo.jsp?id=11224
Remember when John Cole used to be reasonable? Remember when, even if you disagreed with him, you could count on a fair analysis, with a strong bullshit detector built in?
When he brought on that vacuous Tim F. to co-blog, it dragged in the DUmmies, who quickly turned it into a cesspool. John, who used to be notable for his open mind and acceptance of competing views, decided to cater to the new crowd by becoming a bash-Bush-24-7 site, under the pretense of fighting the Vast Christianist Conspiracy (because somehow Terri Schiavo became the Most Important Person Evaaaaaah! to him). Now he’s just another Oliver Willis.
Rudy gets kudos for sticking it right back to the NyTimes and demanding “the rate”.
McCain gets applause for his obvious and sincere outrage at the really (really) stupid ad.
And for noting that if this level of BS keeps up, gains ground…prevails…there may well not be any Republic left to defend.
Well, I think John had some good points re: Terry Schiavo, but I think that’s when he started going over the edge.
I used to like John’s writing; he was a regular stop for me. Now it’s nonstop whining. I don’t talk about it much anymore because it doesn’t serve any purpose.
He and Ken Layne seemed to be decent people at one time, and they’ve both turned into maniacs.
It almost sounds like Cole misstepped at the top of a slope that was… slippery…
<ducks, runs, gets hit anyway>
Rudy gets kudos for sticking it right back to the NyTimes and demanding “the rateâ€Â.
Although it might seem like a minor point I think this demonstrates a political nimbleness on the part of RG that is otherwise sorely lacking on the R side of politics. Color me impressed.
Maybe it is three years of putting up with this sort of nonsense. All sorts of speculation that the NY Times did something wrong and gave MoveOn a sweetheart deal, filing FEC claims against them from positions of complete ignorance, and then, when it is revealed that it is the going rate and Rudy managed to get the same exact deal, and the reaction is not “Wow. We are a bunch of reactionary retards,” it is “Rudy sure is politically nimble and boy John Cole has lost it!”
I think my bullshit detectors are just fine. I see you all standing in a pile of it. How bout that speech last night- you all enjoying your “return on success?”
Yes, John, your bullshit detector is working quite fine. Fortunately, you turn it off before browsing your own site.
Given the publicity, it would have been rather difficult for them to charge a higher price to Rudy. I would be more interested in hearing how much more freedomwatch had to pay, compared to moveon, as those transactions were prior to the light being shined on those cockroaches.
We may be jumping to a conclusion here, and if we are wrong, John, I will happily admit it. Given the track record of the grey lady, it takes little to no effort to make that jump.
Experiment, John:
Channel your response to a revelation that Giuliani had gotten the MoveOn rate say ten days ago.
I don’t call your response BS, I call it what it is: willful intellectual dishonesty.
And since I’m in Iraq, I can tell you that what the Ambassador and the General said over the past week was on the mark. Warts and all.
Which is much more than I can say for your pathetic attempts commentary.
Now go be outraged over Petraeus’ ribbons and Crocker’s tie color before the Kostards excommunicate you.
Can someone provide context for John’s remarks? When did Rudy receive these rates? Did he get them as a result of this tempest in a teapot? Would he have been given the same price before? Is the price MoveOn received actually the “going rate”? If so, I’ll happily admit my error — though as I’ve mentioned on several occasions now, the NYT’s previous partisanship colors the interpretive framework.
The single most annoying thing about Cole’s commentary is this snuff nosed arrogance that says, “I will tell YOU what the important topics are. YOU are arguing about unimportant things.”
Bite me, Cole!
When you actually start to engage in reasoned, critical debate rather tham blanket dismissal, then we’ll have some kind of intellectual context. Until then, take your rhetorical beating like a weenie man.
Ah, here it is:
Anybody else find it odd that a PAC flush with capital would take a chance on “standby” on a very time-specific ad?
They don’t seem to show this kind of frugality when they’re holding the government purse strings, for instance.
QED
Is it me, or wasn’t there another outfit involved in this question, before Giuliani? And didn’t they have to pay like three times what MoveOn was charged?
How does that stack up against “MoveOn was charged the going rate”…? The going rate for what?
UNIMPORTANT! UNIMPORTANT!
I’ll tell you what’s important!
THE SHREDDING OF OUR CONSTITUTION UNTIL IT HAS THE CONSISTANCY OF THAT MOZZARELLA CHEESE THAT MELTS SO BEAUTIFULLY ON MY PANINI MAKER!
All of you are hip deep in unimportant. BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!
But, you know, I’m going to continue to give John the benefit of a doubt, even if he doesn’t return the favor. I’m certainly completely willing to admit that I’m every bit as huge of an asshole as John (and, what the heck, nearly everyone else) is, and that the difference between John and I is, primarily, that John has mistaken anger and scorn for logic, and has turned into a huge flaming asshole.
Not that I think this is going to do any good, mind, but there’s always some small chance.
Man, this is a punch in the face…
excerpted from the NYT article by K. Seelye
When you actually start to engage in reasoned, critical debate…
Because of the correct response to the right’s hysterical braying about traitors is “reasoned, critical debate.” Okay, sure.
This, in a post about MoveOn’s BetrayUs ad, is high irony indeed. Kudos!
John has mistaken anger and scorn for logic
No. I don’t presume to know his mind-okay I do-but I think he’s come to the realization that the only appropriate way to deal with hysterical rantings by people who question everybody else’s patriotism first and their own intelligence last is with mockery, derision and scorn. And it appears to get somebody’s goat, given the number of right-wing bloggers who are willing to come to his blog and be repeatedly humiliated in comments.
This, in a post about MoveOn’s BetrayUs ad, is high irony indeed. Kudos!
From Wikipedia: Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood
There was no irony. My comment was accurate, as “hysterical braying” accurately conveys this post. However, your comment attacking my comment as ironic, is ironic indeed. Unless you were being sarcastic, which I don’t think you were.
JD, Freedom Watch, as indicated in the news story, ran a color ad and paid a premium to get in the paper on a certain day. that’s why they paid more
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
Hey Xanthippas — you paying attention? Bdoran just showed you how to respond to us wingnuts when we raise questions: by answering them.
Could we get a cite on when MoveOn.org is supposed to have “held the government purse strings?”
Too busy typing the snazzy quasi-Greek handle to gather facts, JD. PRIORITIES, WINGNUT!!
I am not sure what to make of “Xanthippas”, unless it is a reference to the death of Dylan Thomas. Being a xenos I can’t decline or conjugate worth crap, so maybe it is a female white horse. Maybe Hippas is a place name, or this is an obscure reference to the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act.
As a lefty low-life hanging out at Cole’s site, I happen to agree with him regarding Iraq policy, the crookedness of the Bush administration, and the increasing ridiculousness of the establishment conservative movement. I strongly suspect he would consider me completely full of shite on the subjects of socialized medicine, social security reform, corporate policy, the proper extent of state power, and so on. So either I have failed to properly screw him up, or the areas of agreement are based on fact.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
What, like rain on your wedding day? Spare me.
I’m going to pretend like someone asked me what I thought about this. What I think is that “Freedom’s Watch” has a stupid and confused idea of where their money is best spent. No different than paying ransom to the Taliban, really. People who give $150,000 or whatever to the New York Times have no place criticizing MoveOn.org, and they sure better not be asking decent Americans for money to do it with.
Xanthippas is currently pushing a new poll by ORB that wishes to conclude, that based upon the responses of 1,461 adults in Iraq to the question, “How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?”, that 1.2 million,/b> Iraqi civilians have died from war related violence since 2003. the only comment is about how long it will take for the “right wing attack machine” to attack this poll.
Sampling, the other white meat.
Sorry Karl! I guess you have been stonewalled you right wing attack machine person, you!
Oops
Karl will attack the sampling in such a way to show that no Iraqis have died who didn’t deserve it.
vandalay will spew some idiotic manufactured non sequitur.
You seem to have a mighty low “bray” threshold, Xanax.
Sure, but you’ll have to follow the bouncing ball:
MoveOn.org, “we bought the Democratic party.” Democrats control congress. Congress controls purse strings.
It’s like math, only with words.
Actually, were you to have hit the links in the “hysterically braying post,” you’d have realized that I already linked that very bit, bdoran. (Well, yesterday’s version of it anyway).
And of course, the question remains: on a time-sensitive ad, why was MoveOn willing to chance standby?
I’ve allowed that it may be because the NYT ad department assured them it there would be space. And that given their falling stock price, I’d be willing to buy this as an explanation.
But beyond that, I’m not sure how posting about Giuliani’s ad helps you, given that he demanded the standby price in response to MoveOn.org’s deal.
As for the rest of the hysterical braying in this post (in which I conclude that I don’t think the government should be involved in punishing the NYT — FASCIST!), I can only say that I don’t see how much has changed.
Well, other than John Cole has sent a few “true conservatives” over here to play gotcha without, apparently, having either read my post or followed its links.
The moveon ad (which ran Monday, September 10) refers to what Gen. Petraeus will be doing “today”, testifying before the Congress.
It’s difficult to accept the idea of “standby” basis for when the ad might run on the basis of the wording it contains. Also difficult to accept is the idea that the NYTimes would not consider the “source” of an ad before quoting a price for an ad.
After all, if an organization (like moveon.org) will pay a substantial amount of money to your newspaper to back up its own view of the world…that’s gotta be a good deal for someone.
Uh, anybody else see the big logical flaw at work here?
And by logical flaw, I’m speaking outside the “consensus” paradigm.
Anyone?
Well, I was trying for a false dilemma, but maybe I hit another one there.
My main point was that Cole, as far as I can tell, is still very much a conservative. Take that for what you will.
lessee…
John Cole would disagree with the self-described “lefty low life” on just about any LLL position under the sun.
Since JC and LLL agree on “the ad thing”, that means their (shared) position is based on “fact”.
Which is not a logical conclusion at all.
sorry, the areas of agreement between JC and LLL aren’t the ad but…”Iraq policy, the crookedness of the Bush administration, and the increasing ridiculousness of the establishment conservative movement.”
Anyway, it is illogical to conclude that because one individual describes himself as a “conservative” and the other as a “liberal” that any areas of agreement between them would be based on fact as opposed to POV or opinion.
Well, while I’m waiting for the true logical fallacy…
I found the exact reference to “today” in the moveon.org’s Monday ad, giving a little suspicion to the notion that they weren’t pretty sure of September 10 publication and were on true “standby” status for the running of their ad…
“Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”
It’s reprehensible, it’s the moveon.org link, hold your nose
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
(adios)
Comment by Xanthippas
My comment was accurate, as “hysterical braying†accurately conveys this post.
I’m not sure you’re using your dictionary correctly.
“Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.â€Â
How does this phrasing arouse suspicion? Didn’t General Petraeus give testimony for three days? Speaking as an art director for an ad agency, if I knew I had a three day window for a standby ad that would cost me half as much as a guaranteed placement, I definitely would have pulled the trigger with the same wording.
But it talks about what they anticipate hearing, not what he may have already said. And art directors don’t buy media. This is because the people on the media buying side really, overtly hate the people on the creative side even though you may not have picked up on this.
“And art directors don’t buy media.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, but in a boutique agency consisting of six people they most certainly do. Not every agency has 100 employees who are all highly specialized and can have such a narrow focus. Hell, sometimes I actually have to do the layout and design myself. I even write copy from time to time.
But by all means, tell me about the career I’ve had for the past twelve years.
Additionally, the way the sentence is phrased does not rule out that on any of the given days of testimony Petraeus would have done what they were anticipating he would do. It doesn’t matter what day of testimony the ad ran on. So long as it ran on a day he testified, the phrasing makes sense.
Ok. I will tell you about your career, mister. Your job is to create a maximally effective campaign within budget. Your job is NOT to save the client money. Your work will not be evaluated on how cheap it was, but on how effective it was. And it’s clear from the copy of the MoveOn ad and the arc of the news cycle it was targeting that it was maximally effective running on day one of the Petraeus testimony.
And it’s clear from the copy of the MoveOn ad and the arc of the news cycle it was targeting that it was maximally effective running on day one of the Petraeus testimony.
It may be clear to you, but do you know it to be the case?
I would think it would work best on the second day of testimony, as the backlash should have been predictable. If going with such a campaign, make sure it will stick, first. You do that by dominating the news cycle on day two, not day one.
Sic ’em, feets!
“It may be clear to you, but do you know it to be the case?
I would think it would work best on the second day of testimony, as the backlash should have been predictable. If going with such a campaign, make sure it will stick, first. You do that by dominating the news cycle on day two, not day one.”
So moveon fucked up by not getting a guaranteed page on day two?
It is going to take a miracle for the Dems not to fuck up the ’08 elections, I am starting to believe.
Fuck you Cole.
You want to quote or paraphrase me, that’s fine, but never try to lump me in with anyone else’s words.
Clear?
Rudy was nimble because he quickly saw what was brewing over the ad – with the potential FEC implication, and rather than just ‘condemning’ it like most pols he actually put together an ad rather quickly and then muscled the NYT into giving him said same favorable rate.
So yeah, that seems pretty damn nimble considering the number of people that had to be involved and the time frame he was operating in.
But if you can’t see that then maybe you truly have lost it.
“Didn’t General Petraeus give testimony for three days?”
Two, Monday and Tuesday, one day each, House & Senate committees.
“Speaking as an art director for an ad agency, if I knew I had a three day window for a standby ad that would cost me half as much as a guaranteed placement, I definitely would have pulled the trigger with the same wording.”
Oh lord, we’re frigging doomed.
For the record, reportedly, allegedly…the price of the “standby ad” was approximately 1/3 that of a “guaranteed date” full page ad in the NYTimes, not 1/2.
Rudy was nimble and has a nice relaxing weekend ahead of him with a boost in esteem points.
The deal with ads is that the NYTimes blah blah blah will let you know in advance if possible if it can work in your “standby ad” on a precise or exact day.
The second deal is that the moveon.orgers would not have included the language (“TODAY”) it did in the ad on the first day of General Petraeus’ testimony WITHOUT SOME SORT OF IRONCLAD GUARANTEE.
Also, the ad appearing on any day other than the OPENING DAY OF HIS TESTIMONY would not have had the same impact.
Sheesh.
The second deal is that the moveon.orgers would not have included the language (â€ÂTODAYâ€Â) it did in the ad on the first day of General Petraeus’ testimony WITHOUT SOME SORT OF IRONCLAD GUARANTEE.
And you know of this ironclad guarantee… how?GUARANTEE.
Also, the ad appearing on any day other than the OPENING DAY OF HIS TESTIMONY would not have had the same impact. Of course. It probably would have had more impact, and less backlash, had it been published on the second day. On day one it got out before P’s testimony, yet caused an immediate backlash, which was not helpful for Moveon.org.
None of this is probative of any conspiracy with the NYT, except in your fevered imagination.
It is suggestive. That it can’t be proven to a degree of certainty only means the we are forced to assign motives based on available clues, indices, inter- and intratexts, history, patterns, etc.
Another example. That “no WMDs were found in Iraq” is not probative of any conspiracy to lead us into war under false pretenses.
Just to give another example.
xenos, what’s “negative” on today’s planet ?
How do you know the sponsors of the ad don’t consider all this attention/brouhaha as “positive” ?
After all, when the intent is to literally TEAR DOWN the institutions of American governance as we know them…any drawing of attention contributes to “the mission”
Skepticism does not mean denying the painfully obvious.
Unless you have a fevered imagination.
Or maybe a political agenda.
The final line of the text of the ad was future tense.
Yet you think this ad could have run the following day? What evidence do you have to support this painfully erroneous belief?
“None of this is probative of any conspiracy with the NYT, except in your fevered imagination.”
One more thing, for the record. I never said “conspiracy”.
I did allude that the editorial staff/owner of the NYTimes might be favoUrably inclined to the notion of impugning General Petraeus’ testimony.
Before it really even got underway.
And that, in light of that truism, “the orgers” mighta gotten a deal.
(for the second and final time tonight, adi-frickin’-os)
Was it a proactive ad or a reactive ad? Which do you think is more effective? I’m thinking the intent of the ad was to frame perception of the general’s testimony.
That said, I’m still way more irritated with this shifty “Freedom Watch” outfit.
sorry – that was for Xenos, I should have refreshed
Knock knock …
Who’s there ?
A former reasonable conservative.
A former reasonable conservative who ?
How dare you question my patriotism?! I am ashamed and embarassed that I was ever a wingnut and a spear carrier for this imperialist warmongering racist regime. This warforoil is a bigger folly than Seward’s. For the last time, I will tell you what you should think is important. Anything else is just a distraction from this national nightmare.
Good DAY, sir.
No, more like: showing up to complain about right-wing hysterical braying in a thread about MoveOn’s very public hysterical braying. Hopefully I’m not going to have to actually draw you a picture, here.
Slarti – If you draw a picture, make sure it is a do-to-dot, the dots must ne clearly labeled, and it should only include the primary colors.
Not acknowledging that you were dead wrong on this one? No big surprise.
How was I dead wrong?
Details, Mike.
You were dead wrong in that:
1. This is their customary rate,
2. Anyone can get it.
3. MoveOn got no special favors.
4. There was no FEC violation
Did you even bother reading my post?
1. It is their customary rate for standby ads. The ad that was run was time-specific. Did MoveOn receive assurances that there would be space, and so their time-sensitive ad running on standby wouldn’t be a problem? As I wrote in my post, it’s plausible, given the NYT ain’t demanding much of a premium right now. But would MoveOn chance it? After all, it’s not like they don’t have the cash to make sure the ad is run on the day it was supposed to be run without leaving it to chance. And that the ad was being discussed before it was run suggests they knew it would run on the day it ran before “standby day” kicked in.
2. Anyone can get a standby rate. Can anyone get assurances that their ad will run on the standby day such that they are confident enough to include in the copy that “today” General Petraeus will likely betray the American people? This is the question: is such the “ordinary course of business.” Which, as I note in my post, was the important question that needed to be answered.
3. How do you know? See all of the above.
4. I never claimed there was an FEC violation. I outlined the FEC rules and then wrote that a violation would depend upon whether or not the NYT was acting in the “ordinary course of business.” Further, I stated that I wouldn’t be in favor of the government taking measures against the Times.
Too much nuance for you? Not my problem.
their time-sensitive ad
Pointless now that Petraeus has resigned.
Did MoveOn receive assurances that there would be space, and so their time-sensitive ad running on standby wouldn’t be a problem? As I wrote in my post, it’s plausible […]
It’s “plausible” because … you say so. Period.
After all, it’s not like they don’t have the cash to make sure the ad is run on the day it was supposed to be run without leaving it to chance.
How much cash do they have? How large is their budget for this kind of ad? Oh, there’s no point in asking you, is there, since you’re making all of this up.
And that the ad was being discussed before it was run suggests they knew it would run on the day it ran before “standby day†kicked in.
Right, there’s no reason for them to be discussing an ad that would run sometime in the next few days.
What are you talking about?
Even were this true, we aren’t talking about pointlessness now. We’re talking about pointedness then.
No, it’s plausible because it could have happened that way. Look up “plausible” in your dictionary.
And given that their ad copy was dependent upon specific ad timing, the onus is on you to come up with another plausible explanation for how they were able to present the time-specific copy. Off the bat, I can think of one: MoveOn would have been perfectly content had the ad not run.
Plausible, yes. But unlikely.
Making all what up?
Time to face it. You didn’t read the post, you made a bunch of sweeping generalizations, and now you’re trying to save face.
Go on. Just admit it. You’ll feel better.
Okay, now I’m beginning to think you’re a bit on the slow side.
Either that, or you enjoy making my points for me without realizing it. That they were discussing it meant they knew it would run.
How, is the question? If they selected “standby,” presumably there were no guarantees. And yet everyone knew the attack ad was coming on the day of Petraeus’ testimony.
Now please. Go away before you lose an eye.
Is this why you write so many words in a post? So, later when you get called on inferences and comments, you can take a hedge line out of context and use it to defend yourself?
A bigger man, one who has apologized before for being mistaken (i.e. you, prior to the 2006 election), would have a) left this alone or b) admitted you have nothing. Instead, you belittle a commeter who was right, all because you can say he cannot ontologically prove that the Occam’s Razor is true.
No, instead, we’ll stand by vague lines in the original post.
As a long-time reader of many blogs, I expect better from you.
[…] I wrote back when questions were first raised over the Times having potentially run afoul of FEC […]