Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
NYT discounted MoveOn Petraus ad
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, September 13, 2007

We've had the usual suspects beam in here and question my questioning of the NY Times decision to run the MoveOn.org ad which slandered Gen. Petraeus prior to his testimony. As I pointed out then, the NYT makes decisions daily about whether or not to run ads. If, hypothetically, a law existed which required them to run all political ads regardless of content, then I'd agree they bore no responsibility. But that's not the case and they do bear responsibility for their decision.

Then to find out that a George Soros backed political action group received a huge discount to boot, well it makes the smell even stronger:
The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Nothing like paying 39% of the going rate for a little character assassination, huh? Another proud chapter in the Grey Lady's legacy.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And of course, at a time when their share prices and circulations are hitting all time lows it only makes sense to give generous discounts on adspace....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Isn’t it a stretch to complain about the discount without knowing the NYT policy on giving discounts? How many businesses charge their list rate for their services? I’d venture hardly any in business to business transactions. No business I’ve ever been in routinely gets list price - it’s inflated by definition as a starting point. If you do manage to get list price it’s either because demand is high or the customer can’t negotiate.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Yes shark, when demand is low for NYT ad space, it does make sense to discount even more than normal.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
To quote that sage Home Simpson,
"New York Times?? Is that thing still around?"

Well, if they keep pulling stupid partisan stunts like that then they may not be around much longer.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Many businesses charge their list price for products or services. Retailers, Gas Stations, car detailers, restaurants, etc. Is that the case in newspaper advertising? I have no idea. I know when I have placed ads with magazines (trade) they offered a discount schedule based on volume, but it wasn’t a secret. Do you think the NYT is a used car salesman that can sniff out who will pay top dollar and who will not?

The only way to find out is to put this kind of pressure on the NYT and see what they can show us to prove the hypothesis wrong. If they have inflated rates that are often discounted, they can show us the invoices. It would also be interesting to see if a pro-war group could get a similar rate or not.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I’m not sure there’s any "there", there. My understanding is that nobody pays the full rate for advertising anyway, except for the hayseeds who don’t know any better.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Whatever the case may be in this particular instance, I think many people who are not associated with the Democratic party or the Left are beginning to regard the NYT as just one more partisan blog, except on paper.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
yes, but not at 39% of the market price! That’s giving it away, not a ’discount’.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"I’m not sure there’s any "there", there. My understanding is that nobody pays the full rate for advertising anyway, except for the hayseeds who don’t know any better."

Well, why don’t you put together a pro-Petraeus ad and price it at the NYT to find out?

Wanna bet?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Joel C, you can’t possibly know if 39% is "giving it away" unless you know what they normally charge and get for ad space. If the jewelery store offers 75% off are they "giving it away" ?

Harun, nearly all of those businesses give discounts for larger deals, long-term relationships, etc.. I’ve negotiated deals with restaurants, rental agencies, retailers, hotels, etc. that are below list. Maybe it can’t be done for gasoline (but even then I suspect the right size deal will make a difference) but it’s definitely possible to get better than list almost everywhere. It’s got nothing to do with being a used car salesman either! I assume you are not in sales or purchasing.

It’s silly to assume that this single data point proves anything about the NYT’s propensity to give left-leaning institutions a break over anyone else. Maybe they do, but this proves nothing. Even if they do, who cares and who is surprised!? Are they relevant anymore? I’d say MoveOn spent 65k to preach to the choir and they are getting a lot more free advertising by all the non-lefty blogs complaining about the ad.



 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
One more thing - the Post report calling in and getting a quote for 165k proves little. Did this reporter negotiate or just ask what the rate is for a FP ad? Do we know the particulars of the MoveOn deal? Careful folks or you’ll have to start wearing the tinfoil hats.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
If we worked like they do, we wouldn’t have to prove anything Grimmy, all we would have to do is what the NYT does all the time, report the facts and then -

Dance the Inuendo (apologies to Don Henley)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m sure the numbers cited are fake but accurate.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I’d say MoveOn spent 65k to preach to the choir and they are getting a lot more free advertising by all the non-lefty blogs complaining about the ad.
Frankly, I don’t see this free advertising helping the Democrats. In fact, the point of the free advertising is to accomplish the opposite.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Well, why don’t you put together a pro-Petraeus ad and price it at the NYT to find out?

Wanna bet?
No. Not really.

A: I don’t care.
B: Even if this was a case of...advertising bias, who’s surprised?
C: It’s their property, they can charge whatever they want to whoever they want for advertising.

At most, this is just a confirmation of what we already knew about the NYT.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
So we can add "print advertising" to the long list of things you have no idea about but doesn’t stop you from pontificating on.

What I find fascinating about this whole kerfufal is that the wingnuts seem far more interested in attacking the messenger rather than the message. Kind of says it all don’t it?
 
Written By: salvage
URL: http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/
What I find fascinating about this whole kerfufal is that the wingnuts seem far more interested in attacking the messenger rather than the message. Kind of says it all don’t it?
Oh, McQ launched several attacks on the message. I guess you’re just too lazy to search the archives. And the NY Times isn’t the messenger, MoveOn.org is the messenger. The Times is more or less an enabler.

What I find fascinating about lefties is that they will tolerate any depth of character assassination against people with whom they disagree. And don’t you think that calling Gen. Patraeus "General Betray Us" is attacking the messenger instead of the message? Maybe you should remove the beam from your own eye before you point out motes in McQ’s.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
And don’t you think that calling Gen. Patraeus "General Betray Us" is attacking the messenger instead of the message?

Uh that was the headline Sparky, didja read the stuff underneath?

And as for "character assassination" oh boo-friggin-hoo. I’m far more concerned with the fact that 2-3 Coalition soldiers are being killed a day in an occupation that Patraeus has admitted is not making America (or anyone save perhaps Iran) safer.

And his "message" was the same tired bs spin that the Bush Administration has been pimping these last three years:

Darn good progress! Need more time for more darn good progress to er progress more.

Fact: Iraq is a failure and anyone who does anything to prolong it is betraying at the very least the soldiers in harm’s way. They are dying so that Bush and his enablers can get out of the White House and blame the eventual total collapse of Iraq on the next Administration.

If that’s not a betrayal than what is it?
 
Written By: salvage
URL: http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/
anyone who does anything to prolong it is betraying at the very least the soldiers in harm’s way
So the soldiers who reenlist to continue fighting in Iraq are betraying themselves? That’s some "darn good" logic!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
And as for "character assassination" oh boo-friggin-hoo.
Thanks for proving my point, putz. You don’t mind it when the left resorts to name-calling, but you are in high dudgeon the minute the right does it.

But I never expected intellectual honesty (or any other kind) from the likes of you.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Fact: Iraq is a failure and anyone who does anything to prolong it is betraying at the very least the soldiers in harm’s way. They are dying so that Bush and his enablers can get out of the White House and blame the eventual total collapse of Iraq on the next Administration.
Not a single thing you have said here in any way qualifies as a "fact." They are merely your opinions, and poorly supported ones at that.
 
Written By: DavidC
URL: http://
>So the soldiers who reenlist to continue fighting in Iraq are betraying themselves? That’s some "darn good" logic!

No that’s not logic, its retarded, that’s why I didn’t say that and you did. That is called a strawman, how about you focus on what I say rather than what you wish I’d say so you could feel smart in answering?

Now focus, I will explain it simply because it’s obvious you can’t handle anything else:

Iraq is lost. No, don’t show me those goofy graphs that Petofbush’s put up, they’re ridiculous in the extreme and certainly do not change the facts on the ground. It’s lost and everyday in Iraq 2-3 Coalition soldiers are dieing for it (FYI being killed in Iraq is far worse than having MoveOn make a pun out of your name, no, it really is) and anyone who is keeping them there is betraying them because and this is a fact, no American national interest is being served there.

No, no, don’t argue with me; argue with Petraus, he made it quite clear that Iraq’s occupation is not making America safer by refusing to say it does.

If an American solider wants to go back to Iraq that’s their business and I salute their bravery while questioning their understanding of the situation. But we are not talking about individual soldiers are we? We are taking about their leadership and what their leadership is doing to them and the country as a whole. I know your kind likes to spin any critique of Bush and this idiotic war into YOU HATE THE TROOPS!!!!! But stop, it doesn’t work on me.

Focus.

> You don’t mind it when the left resorts to name-calling, but you are in high dudgeon the minute the right does it.

Once again can you please tell me where I said that I have a problem with name calling by anyone?

You are literally making up reality as you go along, two examples one right after the other. Fantastic.


DALE RESPONDS:
I know your kind likes to spin any critique of Bush and this idiotic war into YOU HATE THE TROOPS!!!!! But stop, it doesn’t work on me.
Actually, so far, my response to your criticism is simply that you’re a moron.

I mean, since you don’t have any problem with name-calling and all.
 
Written By: salvage
URL: http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/
What would the reaction on the left have been if the NYT had posted a discounted ad for the Swiftboat Vets?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Frankly, I don’t see this free advertising helping the Democrats. In fact, the point of the free advertising is to accomplish the opposite.
Even though the free advertising is most likely 99% anti-MoveOn, it perpetuates their relevance but making them out to be a group worth addressing publically. If everyone ignored them like they deserve, MoveOn would dry up and blow away or at worst remain within the echo chamber.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
What would the reaction be if you bothered to investigate how print advertising works?


—->EVERYONE GETS "DISCOUNTS" <—-

Newspaper real estate prices are in constant flux, there are a mess of factors that go into determining the price as such you can never be sure what you’re going to pay on any given day. This is doubly true when you get into transient rates, that is one time ads such as this. Sometimes you get wicked good deals and sometimes you pay through the nose.

Kerist.

Do you people ever think? If the NYT were keen on "swiftboating" then why charge anything at all? Why not give it away for free? Why not a weekly ad? Why not an ad on every page? If the NYT has some sort of America hating terrorist loving agenda they haven’t been very good at advancing it.

Anything to avoid the reality, like toddler thrashing their head back and forth to avoid eating the advancing broccoli.


Not a single thing you have said here in any way qualifies as a "fact." They are merely your opinions, and poorly supported ones at that.


Really? Where is the success in Iraq then? Why has every intelligence agency (like the CIA) on the planet determined that there is more terrorists and terrorism thanks to Iraq? Why are more Coaltion soldiers being killed than before? Why are more Iraqis dying? Why is the Iraqi infrastructure collapsing? Why is their unemplyment at 50%? Why have millions of Iraqis fled for refugee camps or if they’re "lucky" Syria or Jordan? Why can’t they get the oil flowing? Why is the infant mortality rate higher than ever before in Iraq? Why are the morgues overflowing? Why can the terrorists strike at will? Why is Iran making so many deal with the Iraqi "government"? Why do some polls in Iraq say that life under Saddam was "better"!?

Yeah, that’s some pretty poor support right there.

Guess the last bit of news you read from Iraq was "mission accomplished!" Guess what? That was another Bush lie.
 
Written By: salvage
URL: http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/
Well I think ’salvage’ makes some good point in the two posts previous to this. If I’m honest with myself, that’s how I gotta call it.

Someone said:
And don’t you think that calling Gen. Patraeus "General Betray Us" is attacking the messenger instead of the message?
Doesn’t anyone think a 4-star can defend himself? Does he really need anyone’s outrage? And anyway, he was in a political role, this week, no matter the spin to the the contrary, and that sort of thing just goes around and comes around. Fabricating documents is one thing, but do we really need to get upset about silly name calling?

Everyone needs to get real for Chrissakes. How many posts on this one issue already? Crikey! (Not that I’m complaining; your blog.)
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Keep picking the easy targets, Steve.

Let’s get this out of the way: I wouldn’t have used the phrase MoveOn used. Having said that, I’m not in favor of unilateral disarmnament, either. My outrage for Moveon doing this is exactly zero when #1 Petraeus absolutely needs to be called into question for testimony I don’t consider accurate,
and #2 the right does this crap all the time.

In some fantasy world where right-wingers were punished for calling people traitors, I’d be willing to express my inherent dislike for anyone being called traitors, including general petraeus. But in a dynamic where the crap posted below is still cheered on, why should I feel bad for Gen Petraeus?

So, steverino, are you ready to pour out your disgust for the right-wing thugs here who go around calling americans traitors?

you know, since you’re such an even-handed opponent of questioning patriotism.


Hat Tip to Glenn Greenwald, because the following submission of evidence is all him.



Here is Joseph Farah of World Net Daily in an October, 2004 column entitled "Questioning Kerry’s Patriotism":

Think of what I am saying: A man who came to prominence and notoriety in American life, and who is now on the threshold of winning the White House, was actively aiding and abetting the enemy just 33 years ago. He was a tool. He was an agent. He was working for the other side.

That’s why I say it is time to stop playing rhetorical games with respect to Kerry.

There is only one word in the English language that adequately describes what he was in 1971 — and what he remains today for capitalizing on the evil he perpetrated back then. That word is "traitor."


The right-wing site "American Thinker" — proudly included on Fred Thompson’s short blogroll, among most other places on the Right — published an article in 2005 entitled "Is Jack Murtha a Coward and a Traitor?" (answer: "Any American who recommends retreat is injuring his own country and calling his own patriotism into question"). Here is John Hinderaker of Powerline — Time’s 2004 Blog of the Year — on our country’s 39th President (and, unlike the non-serving Hinderaker, a former Naval officer): "Jimmy Carter isn’t just misguided or ill-informed. He’s on the other side."

When Howard Dean pointed out (presciently) in December of 2005 that the Iraq War cannot be won, Michael Reagan called for Dean to "be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war," and the next day, on Fox News, alongside an approving Sean Hannity, he said: "I have no problem at all, no problem at all, with what this guy is doing, taking him out and arresting him." And here is Giuliani campaign advisor Norm Podhoretz on the Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday, as they explained how deeply anti-American "Democrats" are:

HH: Norman Podhoretz, before the last break, we were talking about the intellectual class in America that is so deeply anti-American from the Vietnam years, and how it did not take them long to find in America the cause for 9/11, and to begin what has been a very poisonous attack on America over the last six years. How can they be that successful?

NP: Well, what I try to explain in my book is that a lot of these people were working out of the anti-war movement playbook of the Vietnam era. . . .

And they’ve gone even further than they did under McGovern. I mean, embracing defeat, calling for American defeat, rooting for American defeat.

Insinuating that Democrats and/or other opponents of various American wars are "betraying" America — and worse — has been the central argumentative tactic on the Right for decades. So says no less of an expert on (and past purveyor of) such tactics than Pat Buchanan, in his column today explaining why Congressional Democrats will never end the war:

———————

As The Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks reported regarding a Senate hearing in May:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) asked Army Lt. Gen. David H . Petraeus during his confirmation hearing yesterday if Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort."

Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That’s correct, sir."

Though subsequent reports suggested that Lieberman used the phrase "give the enemy some encouragement" (rather than the treasonous term of art "comfort"), the point was the same: those who condemned the President’s war policy were, pursuant to Petraeus’ toxic accusations, helping America’s Terrorist Enemies. Petraeus’ comments were so disturbing, and obviously inappropriate (though hardly uncommon), that it led GOP Sen. John Warner to admonish him as follows:

I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret. I wonder if you would just give me the assurance that you’ll go back and examine the transcript as to what you replied with respect to certain of these questions and review it, because we want you to succeed.


What all of this really reflects is the underlying and pervasive premise that those who advocate American wars are inherently patriotic and "pro-American," while it is always appropriate to impugn the patriotism and allegiances of those who oppose such wars (even when such war opponents are life-long civil servants or even military veterans).


But as petty as the story is, it is also revealing. It has been perfectly fine for decades to impugn the patriotism of those who think the U.S. should stop invading and bombing other countries (how could anyone possibly think such a thing unless they hate America?), while it is strictly forbidden to do anything other than pay homage to the Seriousness and Patriotism of those who advocate wars. Hence, the very people who routinely traffic in "unpatriotic" and even "treason" rhetoric towards the likes of Jack Murtha, John Kerry and war opponents generally feign such pious objection to the MoveOn ad without anyone noticing any contradiction at all.

UPDATE: John Cole points to the lengthy Enemies List compiled by the always-vigilant Michelle Malkin, who exploits photographs of the 9/11 victims to urge "resistance" against America’s Terrorist Enemies and their domestic allies:

But remembrance without resistance to jihad and its enablers is a recipe for another 9/11. This is what fueled my first two books, on immigration enforcement and profiling. This is what fuels much of the work on this blog and at Hot Air.

Not every American wears a military uniform. But every American has a role to play in protecting our homeland — not just from Muslim terrorists, but from their financiers, their public relations machine, their sharia-pimping activists, the anti-war goons, the civil liberties absolutists, and the academic apologists for our enemies.

Depending on how one defines "anti-war goons" and "civil liberties absolutists," it sounds like Michelle’s Enemies List is composed of roughly 65% of the American population.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
What would the reaction on the left have been if the NYT had posted a discounted ad for the Swiftboat Vets?

I’d be angry at the swiftboat vets. Unless I had evidence that there was some sort of policy where ideological leaners get regular discounts. If I suspected it, I’d investigate, but I wouldn’t fire before I aimed, as has been done here en masse. Either this is the tip of a vast iceberg of the NYT cutting leftist discounts, or the whole thing makes no sense. It’s not like MoveOn couldn’t afford ’regular’ prices.

Furthermore, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if right-wing newspapers gave right-wing ads regular discounts. I don’t go around claiming it, though.

As a "left" member, I don’t like it when mainstream publications enforce ideological considerations on their advertising, no matter who it is. I’m pretty sure the NYT ran a "Freedom’s Watch" Pro-surge ad on the same day, so I don’t see that happening.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
In some fantasy world where right-wingers were punished for calling people traitors, I’d be willing to express my inherent dislike for anyone being called traitors, including general petraeus. But in a dynamic where the crap posted below is still cheered on, why should I feel bad for Gen Petraeus?
Except that Gen Petraeus isn’t a traitor, while many on the left are.
Hat Tip to Glenn Greenwald, because the following submission of evidence is all him.
Someone still reads the sock puppet? I mean, there is nothing like going to a known lier for facts.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I’d be angry at the swiftboat vets.
What for? Telling the truth about Kerry?

I guess the truth sometimes hurts.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Except that Gen Petraeus isn’t a traitor, while many on the left are.
Awesome. How can you argue with reasoning like that?
Hat Tip to Glenn Greenwald, because the following submission of evidence is all him.

Someone still reads the sock puppet? I mean, there is nothing like going to a known lier for facts.
Except the accusations of sockpupperty came from wingnuts, was clearly proven to be false and yet the wingnuts persist in insisting it true.

Once again, deny reality, attack the messenger not the message, well at least the retardation is consistent.
What for? Telling the truth about Kerry?
Like I said, consistent.
 
Written By: salvage
URL: http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/
We have the perfect test coming up: Giuliani has just challenged the NYT to give his campaign the same rate for a full-page ad responding to the "Betray Us" ad.
 
Written By: Charlie (Colorado)
URL: http://explorations.chasrmartin.com
Salvage - some of your facts need tuning.
No, no, don’t argue with me; argue with Petraus, he made it quite clear that Iraq’s occupation is not making America safer by refusing to say it does.
For one Petraeus, when given the opportunity, altered his statement about whether or not he thought the effort was making America safer.

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): "I thought you had an excellent, very candid response to Senator Warner’s question and that was - he asked you - going forward the recommendations that you’re making, will that make America safer? And you said that you could not answer that question because that was beyond the purview of your — beyond the scope of your responsibilities."

PETRAEUS: "Well, I thank you actually, Senator, for an opportunity to address that, frankly. Candidly, I have been so focused on Iraq that drawing all the way out was something that for a moment there was a bit of a surprise.

"But I think that we have very, very clear and very serious national interests in Iraq. Trying to achieve those interests — achieving those interests has very serious implications for our safety and for our security. So I think the answer really, to come back to it is yes. But again, frankly, having focused down and down and down, that was something that really on first glance is something that I would let others - "

BAYH: "I judge by your response to Senator Graham, that you have given that a little additional thought."

PETRAEUS: "Immediately afterwards actually."

BAYH: "That happens to all of us, including those of us on this side of the table."
Make a note to take that out of your talking points.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
anyone who is keeping them there is betraying them
Again, you are making the argument that soldiers who reenlist are betraying themselves.

This statement MUST be true based on your logic because if the soldiers didn’t reenlist, then there wouldn’t be enough soldiers to continue our involvement in Iraq. Reenlisting soldiers are helping to keep us in Iraq.

It’s your logic. Don’t run from it.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Savage,

In response to your demand to Dale to try to do his own ad to check this out, ABC is reporting on their blog that:

"Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged "significantly more" than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, "and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid," David says. "

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/09/more-on-that-mo.html
 
Written By: Pompiea
URL: http://
"At most, this is just a confirmation of what we already knew about the NYT."

And that is the "there" there.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Why is the Iraqi infrastructure collapsing? Why is their unemplyment at 50%? Why have millions of Iraqis fled for refugee camps or if they’re "lucky" Syria or Jordan? Why can’t they get the oil flowing? Why is the infant mortality rate higher than ever before in Iraq? Why are the morgues overflowing? Why can the terrorists strike at will? Why is Iran making so many deal with the Iraqi "government"? Why do some polls in Iraq say that life under Saddam was "better"!?
If you think any of these problems are going to solve themselves with any kind of immediacy in the wake of a hypothetical US withdrawal, I think you’re being a little dishonest with yourself. Iraq may be a mess, but the only way this mess will clean itself up (without outside help) will be with lots and lots of blood (refer to the Lebanese civil war.) Of course, the good news it would only be (lots of) Arab blood, so if you’re groovy with that I am too. No reason to spill precious white people blood on a brown people problem (excluding Darfur, natch.)
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Except the accusations of sockpupperty came from wingnuts, was clearly proven to be false and yet the wingnuts persist in insisting it true.
Except that that’s not true. Greenwald is a lier and sockpuppet.

However, the Swiftees nailed Kerry good: lies about Xmas in Cambodia, lies about his first Purple Heart, lies about the Bronze Star.

Kerry’s own log discrdited his first Purple Heart, you know, the one he never released the papers on . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
We have the perfect test coming up: Giuliani has just challenged the NYT to give his campaign the same rate for a full-page ad responding to the "Betray Us" ad.
Cool.

But it isn’t a fair test, since the NYT knows it will look bad if they don’t meet Giuliani’s request. What this is really a test of is how willing they are to look bad.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Salvage - some of your facts need tuning.
Oh awesome, so the answer is so obviously yes yet he couldn’t say it when asked but later on he has very pat answer that really is just a pile of gobbledygook that reeks of Team Bush coaching.

Yes, very convincing indeed and from such a harsh critic of Iraq that Bayh! Voting for it and is now sorta kinda against it but really very flexible.
JWG
You are very stupid.
"Freedom’s Watch!
Well another impeachable source and certainly not biased! But once again, I need you to focus on the following words, if you do not understand them please let me know and I will see if I can make it simpler.

How, I don’t know.

Please do not mistake the following all caps for yelling, I’m just trying to make it as easy to read as possible.

PRICES FOR ADS IN PAPERS CHANGE DAY TO DAY YOU WILL NEVER GET THE SAME PRICE FOR A ONE TIME INSERTION. THE ONLY WAY ANYONE CAN GUARANTEE A STABLE PRICE IS IF THEY BOOK MONTHS OF ADS. SOMETIMES THEY WILL PAY MORE SOMETIMES THEY WILL PAY LESS.
If you think any of these problems are going to solve themselves with any kind of immediacy in the wake of a hypothetical US withdrawal, I think you’re being a little dishonest with yourself.
Holy sh*t. What is wrong with you? Can you not read? Did I say these problems would be solved by a pullout? No, the only problem that will be solved will be the lives of soldiers will not be thrown away to save the legacy and ego of Bush and his supporters.

Iraq is destroyed, America has taken a bad place and made it worse, it can’t be fixed all that can happen is collapse and a new Saddam or Iranian backed Mullah to fill the power vacuum. That will happen sooner or later, getting people out of the way is the only sane course of action at this point.
Iraq may be a mess, but the only way this mess will clean itself up (without outside help) will be with lots and lots of blood (refer to the Lebanese civil war.)
That’s right. So was the invasion a good thing or a bad thing? Has it solved more problems than made? Has the occupation? So maybe it’s time to stop huh? Maybe it’s time to take the leaders of this debacle to task for their criminal incompetence? Ah but then you and your fellow warfloggers might have to shoulder some blame, can’t have that can we?
Of course, the good news it would only be (lots of) Arab blood, so if you’re groovy with that I am too. No reason to spill precious white people blood on a brown people problem (excluding Darfur, natch.)
HAHA! Yes I am a racist! I hate Freedom! America! God! Love terrorists and Saddam and bin Laden just like the NYT.

There, I’ve confessed to all you wingnut boilerplate accusations, we need not bring them up any further.

But tell me when you first heard the term "shock and awe" did it give you shivers? Did you watch bits of Iraq blow up on Fox and cheer it on? Your accusation smacks of projection, don’t think I share your sickness. It’s your Dear Leader and your country that has spilled so much Arab blood so look to yourself for that particular lust.
Greenwald is a lier and sockpuppet.
No he’s not that nor is he a liar but this is just more “attack messenger not message” so whatever.
However, the Swiftees nailed Kerry good: lies about Xmas in Cambodia, lies about his first Purple Heart, lies about the Bronze Star.
Soldiers do not give themselves awards, the army does so you are calling the army liars.

Cambodia however was probably some sort of lie but ya know what? Compared to lying about WMD and getting countless thousands killed doesn’t really compare does it? Not to mention Bush’s own lies about his past, present and I’m sure future could fill a Starlifter.
 
Written By: salvage
URL: http://http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/
I’m not sure there’s any "there", there. My understanding is that nobody pays the full rate for advertising anyway, except for the hayseeds who don’t know any better.
Trust me as someone who has worked with newspapers for over 20 years, there are no 60% discounts. Yes, they’ll give a good advertising some discounts (10, 20, maybe even 30) but not to that extent.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Oh awesome, so the answer is so obviously yes yet he couldn’t say it when asked but later on he has very pat answer that really is just a pile of gobbledygook that reeks of Team Bush coaching.
Wow solid response - i.e. it didn’t matter because he told the truth at first, but then he lied afterwards, right? Whereas if he’d said yes up front, he would merely have been lying all along. Yeah buddy.
Don’t bother looking at what he actually said there, which was that that issue wasn’t his primary focus. Construe that to mean "NO" because that works for you.
Cambodia however was probably some sort of lie but ya know what? Compared to lying about WMD and getting countless thousands killed doesn’t really compare does it? Not to mention Bush’s own lies about his past, present and I’m sure future could fill a Starlifter.
1) Stick with the normal talking points.
2) argue that one wrong weighs much more than the other so that, ya know what, it doesn’t matter, they all do it, everybody’s dirty, move on here, nothing to see.
3) Stick with the WMD issue, it still has mileage even if we ignore the number of other non-US intel agenices that also thought Iraq had WMD’s & including the Iraqi generals tasked with defending their country.
4) Use inuendo that perhaps the TANG papers were fake but they WERE accurate, and/or, argue that Bush has LIED!, don’t offer proof, just saying it’s enough to ’win’ the discussion.
5) repeat endlessly
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Salvage, after wading through your, uh, posts and that aptly titled blog you have, I have to ask: it’s all just about getting back at your parents and the ’cool’ kids in high school who wouldn’t give you the time of day, isn’t it?

Seriously, about 90% of the American left/hippies/anti-warriors/hate Bushers etc. that I meet are simply rebelling against their parents and/or acting out against a society which they perceive has shunned them. All of which is okay if you’re 12. But, Salvage, come on, dude. Get over it.

Angry, clueless and self-righteous is no way to go thru life.....
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Soldiers do not give themselves awards, the army does so you are calling the army liars.
Ahh. Complete lack of clue.

A Navy doc has reported that Kerry came to him fishing to get a PH write up for a minor wound. The doc told Kerry to take a hike, but Kerry either went fishing elsewhere or did the write up himself.

I’ll believe the Navy doc over Kerry, and one reason is that Kerry’s own log indicates he had not been on the recieving end of enemy fire until well after his first PH "action". Further, Kerry has failed to release the documents that could help resolve this issue.

The PH issue is serious, because it allowed Kerry to skip on out of action ASAP.

With respect to the BS action, Kerry’s medal write up is the only thing that indicates they were under enemy fire. And in any case it was Karry’s fault the Special Forces guy fell into the water and had to be rescued anyway (running off ASAP when the mine went off, while the other boats stayed and did their job).
Cambodia however was probably some sort of lie but ya know what? Compared to lying about WMD and getting countless thousands killed doesn’t really compare does it? Not to mention Bush’s own lies about his past, present and I’m sure future could fill a Starlifter.
Except there were no lies about WMD. Even the Clinton Administration thought it was there.

And lies about Bush’s past? You mean the forged memos?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Angry, clueless and self-righteous is no way to go thru life....
Ah, but you forget, salvage and those like him know the TRUTH. They have their own "facts" which cannot be challenged; and they think that if they repeat them loudly enough, over and over, maybe some of us poor deluded fools who disagree might see the light.
 
Written By: DavidC
URL: http://
But tell me when you first heard the term "shock and awe" did it give you shivers? Did you watch bits of Iraq blow up on Fox and cheer it on? Your accusation smacks of projection, don’t think I share your sickness. It’s your Dear Leader and your country that has spilled so much Arab blood so look to yourself for that particular lust.
Haha, chill out mate. Firstly, I hold Ralph Peter’s critical view of "shock and awe" as a meaningless sound and light show devised by a SECDEF in love with the air-force; and had some back and forth over it with commenter Martin McPhillips on another post here.

Mostly though, I was curious to see if you had any (at least pretended) compassion for the civilian Iraqis getting shafted here. I see now that you subscribe to the easier doctrine of isolation. Genocide, ethnic slaughtering, "never again?" Maybe more like "never again will we give a damn." Why bother righting wrongs when they take more than just blustering and pontificating? Too much effort and sacrifice...
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Compared to lying about WMD and getting countless thousands killed doesn’t really compare does it?
Way to fire off those zingers, you’re a regular joker.

As for "countless thousands" I’m sure someone is counting. Clearly, you don’t care enough to pay attention.
 
Written By: jows
URL: http://
It’s your Dear Leader and your country that has spilled so much Arab blood so look to yourself for that particular lust.
Ironically, we actually go out of our way to avoid spilling Arab blood. It’s the Arabs who seem most inclined to spill Arab blood, or to spill the blood of others.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It’s the Arabs who seem most inclined to spill Arab blood
Shh, I was going to let him figure that one out on his own, but I guess he wasn’t interested in reading my post too deeply. I don’t think he much cares about that though; better to shirk our responsibility to the country and let tens of thousands more Iraqis die rather than have any more military casualties (he supports our troops, you see.)
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Further, Kerry has failed to release the documents that could help resolve this issue.
The Boston Glob reported that he did approve release of the information finally, and they requested it (back in 2005 I think).
They note there was no after action report in the offical documents detailing earning the 1st PH.

Make of those two facts what you will.

Salvage -
If we replace the word ’Soldiers’ with the word ’Sailors’, and the word ’Army’ (twice) with the word ’Navy’ (twice) in the sentence
Soldiers do not give themselves awards, the army does so you are calling the army liars.
we can take follow the point you are attempting to make.

However, it doesn’t speak well for the way you treat facts, or, it indicates you actually have no knowledge of the subject you are speaking about with regards to John Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans. One would have thought the word boat might have offered the necessary clue.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

However, it doesn’t speak well for the way you treat facts, or, it indicates you actually have no knowledge of the subject you are speaking about with regards to John Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans. One would have thought the word boat might have offered the necessary clue.
Here is a good summary of the issue brought up by the "swift boat" people (only one of whom actually served on the same boat as Kerry).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Soldiers do not give themselves awards, the army does so you are calling the army liars.
I’ve seen a few "inflated" awards in my time. It depends on the commanders. Some commanders give out very few awards because they don’t want the awards to become common place and meaningless. Other commanders don’t care and as long as the submitter does a good job crafting the write-up then they’ll sign-off on it without verifying the details or determining if the award is merited or not. As I understand it, awards at bronze star or above are a little more difficult to receive because they have to be approved by special boards. A bronze star is easier to get through than a silver star and they get increasingly more difficult with the MOH being the hardest to get.

So yes awards can be inflated and if Kerry wanted run as a war hero then it’s appropriate to scrutinize those awards. I remember that Dems were scouring Bush’s awards to see they could find similar mud on him. They couldn’t because Bush didn’t have any awards other than the very basic "I served" ribbons...but then again Bush wasn’t running as a war hero.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
I don’t know the details of this specific case, but I do know a bit about ad/commercial sales and rates. Dale is right about the distinction between the list price and the price that advertisers actually pay.

The list price is not "what you have to pay to advertise here" - it is "a price we’d really like you to pay, but we can begin negotiations there."

Advertising rates are a lot like airfares. The fact that you can find different prices for similarly situated consumers does not mean one of those consumers was given a favor by the business.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Advertising rates are a lot like airfares. The fact that you can find different prices for similarly situated consumers does not mean one of those consumers was given a favor by the business.
Again, while that’s true, 60% discounts simply aren’t done and especially in today’s newspaper market.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Except that Gen Petraeus isn’t a traitor, while many on the left are.
If you really believe that, buddy, I suggest you get moving on your patriotic duty to the country, lining them up against a wall somewhere and executing them.

Otherwise, you’re just a blowhard.

We’ve had some genuine conversations, but this is scum talk. Congrats, you’ve closed down this conversation, out of disgust. Thanks for proving Glenn’s point more eloquently than evidence.





 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
It would be a mistake to think of the Times as stooping low in running an ad like the one from MoveOn and giving them a discount price to boot. There’s no stooping involved. That is who and what the Times is. The Times is not merely a newspaper with a point of view; it is beyond saturation with propaganda for a point of view that to be properly called what it is would have to involve at least the words suicidal, totalitarian, and impulse.

Indeed, the Times is not catering to George Soros and MoveOn. It’s the other way around. Soros and MoveOn are way behind the curve.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Again, while that’s true, 60% discounts simply aren’t done and especially in today’s newspaper market.
I don’t know what the range of rates that advertisers actually end up paying in the newspaper industry are, but I’d be curious to see the data if you have it.

In radio, 60% below the asking price is not at all unusual. Even 100%.

We’d list remotes at (I’m making up a figure here) $2500. And if a client paid that, we’d do it. But we routinely gave away remotes for free as "added value". There’s a very big distinction between the top asking price, and the price at which spots are actually sold - as much as 95% sometimes.

I don’t know the specifics in the newspaper industry, but a 60% discount for ads is not only not unheard of, it’s pretty much the norm.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I don’t know what the range of rates that advertisers actually end up paying in the newspaper industry are, but I’d be curious to see the data if you have it.
My data comes from the same place yours does ... 20 years experience in the industry and knowing a ton of advertising managers and how they do business.

60% discounts isn’t even the ballpark.
I don’t know the specifics in the newspaper industry, but a 60% discount for ads is not only not unheard of, it’s pretty much the norm.
Not in the newspaper industry it isn’t. How many radio stations are in a given city? How many newspapers?

Yeah ... they don’t have to discount at that rate.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
7MfVJD mcznkunfwyxp, [url=http://mxdxkajehfqc.com/]mxdxkajehfqc[/url], [link=http://efcrtgexxpgt.com/]efcrtgexxpgt[/link], http://rvjjhxbxwjrz.com/
 
Written By: mtxuwepn
URL: http://virajdbtsewa.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider