Politics > Politics-USA > MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq.
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
06 Sep 2007 08:01:38 AM |
| Object: |
MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
In the Hell Hath No Fury sweepstakes, groups like MoveOn.org are gearing up to
take on a new set of perceived traitors in their midst--Democrats who have
acknowledged some success from the troop surge in Iraq.
Chief among the targets is Washington Congressman Brian Baird, whose
indiscretion was recognizing progress on the ground, despite having initially
opposed the surge and having opposed the war in the first place. After a
recent trip to Iraq, Mr. Baird said: "One of the things that gets very little
attention is that virtually every other country I visited says it would be a
mistake to pull out now."
We hope he took his flak jacket home from Baghdad. MoveOn is rolling out an ad
this week in Mr. Baird's Washington district, in which a former soldier tells
of being shot at in 2003 by the Iraqis he had fought to liberate and calls
America's continued presence in the country "wrong, immoral and
irresponsible." What does this have to do with the wisdom--or lack thereof--of
the current strategy? Nada, which tells you something about MoveOn's honesty.
The group doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to punish and silence Democrats
who dare to think for themselves. There's a pattern here: When John Dingell
contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this
year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old
Congressman "Dingellsaurus."
Mr. Baird is hardly alone in his assessment of progress in Iraq, even among
Democrats. In the past month, Senate Democrats Carl Levin, Hillary Clinton,
***** Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed have all acknowledged progress on the
ground--though many still downplay the overall chances of success.
Representatives Keith Ellison (Minnesota) and Jerry McNerney (California)
recently returned "impressed" by what they'd seen, though they were careful to
temper their statements for any perceived optimism. After watching U.S.
soldiers greet Iraqis in Arabic with "peace be upon you," Mr. Ellison reported
that "they would respond back with smiles and waves" before quickly adding, "I
don't want to overplay it." It's a measure of how far the antiwar left has
moved the debate on Iraq that Mr. Ellison doesn't want to sound too
enthusiastic about the chances that the U.S. might actually win.
Mr. Baird is so far showing no signs of backing down from his comments. In
response to the MoveOn attacks, he said: "I believe I must speak and act based
on what I believe is in the best interest of our nation regardless of
political advertisements or partisan interests. Based on personal visits to
the region, I believe the dynamics on the ground in Iraq are changing for the
better and, while there are still multiple and serious challenges, and while
the course is uncertain and dangerous, the changes I have seen warrant
continued support of current actions through next spring."
Nice to see some political backbone in Washington. Meanwhile, MoveOn and its
billionaire donors are out to solidify their ideological control of the
Democratic Party, even if that means denying what is actually happening inside
Iraq.
.
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: The New Blacklist (was: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq.) |
04 Oct 2007 04:43:41 AM |
|
|
In recent weeks we've seen how the MoveOn.org Democrats have aped the tactics
of Joe McCarthy, including character assassination of military officials and
childish wordplay on people's names ("Senator Half Bright"; "General Betray
Us"). Fox News reports on the latest effort to imitate old Tailgunner Joe:
The owner of the company that airs Rush Limbaugh's show
has come to his defense, telling Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid that while he isn't certain to whom Limbaugh
was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers,"
the radio talk show host has a long history of supporting
U.S. troops.
Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent
company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to
a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the
network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh
"that call into question" the service and sacrifice of
troops who oppose the war in Iraq.
As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about "phony
soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men like Jesse
Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a
Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged
him before he even completed basic training.
If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But
when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood, that amounts to an
effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.
The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which
means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will
they speak out against their colleagues' intimidation efforts? And where are
the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall
to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs
politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nightwind65" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Blacklist (was: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq.) |
04 Oct 2007 10:18:46 AM |
|
|
In article <OZidnaOfIKl-XpnanZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
weberm@polaris.net says...
In recent weeks we've seen how the MoveOn.org Democrats have aped the tactics
of Joe McCarthy, including character assassination of military officials and
childish wordplay on people's names ("Senator Half Bright"; "General Betray
Us"). Fox News reports on the latest effort to imitate old Tailgunner Joe:
The owner of the company that airs Rush Limbaugh's show
has come to his defense, telling Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid that while he isn't certain to whom Limbaugh
was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers,"
the radio talk show host has a long history of supporting
U.S. troops.
Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent
company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to
a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the
network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh
"that call into question" the service and sacrifice of
troops who oppose the war in Iraq.
As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about "phony
soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men like Jesse
Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a
Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged
him before he even completed basic training.
If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But
when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood, that amounts to an
effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.
The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which
means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will
they speak out against their colleagues' intimidation efforts? And where are
the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall
to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs
politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.
Amend
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Blacklist |
14 Oct 2007 04:23:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
weberm@polaris.net says...
In recent weeks we've seen how the MoveOn.org Democrats have aped the
tactics of Joe McCarthy, including character assassination of
military officials and childish wordplay on people's names ("Senator
Half Bright"; "General Betray Us"). Fox News reports on the latest
effort to imitate old Tailgunner Joe:
The owner of the company that airs Rush Limbaugh's show
has come to his defense, telling Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid that while he isn't certain to whom Limbaugh
was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers,"
the radio talk show host has a long history of supporting
U.S. troops.
Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent
company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to
a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the
network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh
"that call into question" the service and sacrifice of
troops who oppose the war in Iraq.
As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about
"phony soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men
like Jesse Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served
in Iraq, received a Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when
in fact the Army discharged him before he even completed basic
training.
If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to
do so. But when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood,
that amounts to an effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.
The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter,
which means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe
Lieberman). Will they speak out against their colleagues'
intimidation efforts? And where are the Republicans in all this?
With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall to hate groups
like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs politicians
of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.
Amen
"Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of MoveOn.org,
the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar last month
when it received preferential treatment from The New York Times for its
'General Betray Us' message," reports the Examiner's Robert Cox:
The ads banned by Google were placed by a firm working
for Republican Sen. Susan Collins' re-election campaign.
Collins is seeking her third term.
Earlier this week, Google told Lance Dutson, president
of Maine Coast Designs, that the ads he placed for
Collins had been removed and would not be allowed to
resume because they violated Google's trademark policy...
The banned advertisements said, "Susan Collins is MoveOn's
primary target. Learn how you can help" and "Help Susan
Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine." The
ads linked to Collins' campaign Web site with a headline
reading "MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target."
The Collins Web site claims that MoveOn has contributed
$250,000 to her likely Democratic opponent and has run
nine ads against her costing nearly $1 million. The Web
site also displays MoveOn.org's controversial "General
Betray Us" ad.
Last month Jon Healy of the Los Angeles Times reported on similar
efforts:
It's not too surprising that the liberal advocacy
group would be a mite touchy from all the blowback
online [from its McCarthyite attack on Gen. David
Petraeus], even though it should be used to the abuse
by now. So touchy, in fact, that it's been sending out
cease-and-desist letters to CafePress, a website that
lets people offer custom-designed t-shirts, coffee
mugs and the like for sale. Last week it demanded that
the site remove eight items, arguing that they violated
MoveOn's merchandising trademarks.
Trademark law doesn't confer monopoly rights over all
uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however, and it
wasn't created simply to protect the trademark owner's
interests. Instead, it's designed to protect consumers
against being misled or confused about brands. The
courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of parodies and
critiques; that's why www.famousbrandnamesucks.com doesn't
violate famousbrandname's trademark. And most, if not
all, of the items targeted by MoveOn were clearly
designed to razz it, not to trick buyers into thinking
they were the group's products.
Beyond that, it's amazing that MoveOn would try to squelch
political speech. That's another clear purpose of the
targeted items. Take, for example, this message on a t-shirt
designed by a lifelong Democrat from Southern California :
General Petraeus has done more for this country
than MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org, the worst friend a
Democrat could have! Move Away from Move On!
To its credit, CafePress refused to take down five bumper
stickers, and it reinstated a t-shirt that it had taken down
briefly in response to MoveOn's initial request.
It's not amazing at all that MoveOn would try to squelch political
speech. This effort is of a piece with its thuggish rhetoric about
Petraeus and other figures not of the Angry Left. Thuggish rhetoric is
of course protected by the First Amendment, and MoveOn is not above
taking advantage of America 's liberal ideals in order to undermine
them.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dangdangdoodIe" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Blacklist (was: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq.) |
09 Oct 2007 11:43:40 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.216eb8ce65437396989687@news.usenetserver.com>,
Nightwind65 <dbergman39@charter.net> wrote:
In article <OZidnaOfIKl-XpnanZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
weberm@polaris.net says...
In recent weeks we've seen how the MoveOn.org Democrats have aped the tactics
of Joe McCarthy, including character assassination of military officials and
childish wordplay on people's names ("Senator Half Bright"; "General Betray
Us"). Fox News reports on the latest effort to imitate old Tailgunner Joe:
The owner of the company that airs Rush Limbaugh's show
has come to his defense, telling Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid that while he isn't certain to whom Limbaugh
was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers,"
the radio talk show host has a long history of supporting
U.S. troops.
Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent
company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to
a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the
network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh
"that call into question" the service and sacrifice of
troops who oppose the war in Iraq.
As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about "phony
soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men like Jesse
Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a
Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged
him before he even completed basic training.
If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But
when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood, that amounts to an
effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.
The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which
means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will
they speak out against their colleagues' intimidation efforts? And where are
the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall
to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs
politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.
Amend
So ***** smells good to you guys.
--
the dang
Rightwing truism. "If it fears right, it must be true." --rg
___________
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: The New Blacklist (was: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq.) |
04 Oct 2007 10:35:18 AM |
|
|
On Oct 4, 5:43 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
In recent weeks we've seen how the MoveOn.org Democrats have aped the tactics
of Joe McCarthy, including character assassination of military officials and
childish wordplay on people's names ("Senator Half Bright"; "General Betray
Us"). Fox News reports on the latest effort to imitate old Tailgunner Joe:
The owner of the company that airs Rush Limbaugh's show
has come to his defense, telling Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid that while he isn't certain to whom Limbaugh
was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers,"
the radio talk show host has a long history of supporting
U.S. troops.
Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent
company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to
a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the
network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh
"that call into question" the service and sacrifice of
troops who oppose the war in Iraq.
As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about "phony
soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men like Jesse
Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a
Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged
him before he even completed basic training.
If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But
when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood, that amounts to an
effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.
The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which
means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will
they speak out against their colleagues' intimidation efforts? And where are
the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall
to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs
politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.
"By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a
new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we
got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."
-Rush Limbaugh, Jan. 25 2007
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012507/content/truth_detector.LogIn.html
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well
beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have
discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate
leadership denouncing them." -Republican Rep. Jack Kingston telling
MSNBC why Democrats are wrong to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his
"phony soldiers" remark.
Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn
for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
19 Nov 2007 08:06:25 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a
new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we
got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."
-Rush Limbaugh, Jan. 25 2007
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012507/content/truth_detect
or.LogIn.html
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well
beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have
discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate
leadership denouncing them." -Republican Rep. Jack Kingston telling
MSNBC why Democrats are wrong to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his
"phony soldiers" remark.
Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn
for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
The Wall Street Journal did a good job this week of exposing the vicious
tactics of the far-left outfit "MoveOn." The story centers on Democratic
Congressman Brian Baird, an ardent opponent of the Iraq war, who
recently traveled to that hellish country and, surprisingly, came back
saying that the "surge" is improving things there.
Well, MoveOn and its internet hit men immediately began damning Baird
and even funded a TV commercial airing in his Washington State district
aimed at getting him out of office.
As the Journal put it, "[MoveOn] doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to
punish and silence Democrats who dare think for themselves."
And MoveOn has largely succeeded. Few Democrats want to be defamed and
attacked by an organization that has millions of dollars and no
standards of honesty. MoveOn and its character assassins have
infiltrated a variety of political websites and there are no rules.
The funding behind MoveOn comes from radical left-wing billionaires
George Soros and Peter Lewis, from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
which has assets of nearly $400 million, and from the ultra-liberal
"Tides Foundation." MoveOn members also donate.
So the operation is awash in dollars and can buy attack advertisements
all day long. Last year, Senator Joseph Lieberman lost the Democratic
primary in Connecticut largely because of MoveOn's blistering campaign
against him.
The two party system in America has always been delicate, and I believe
we need a vibrant third party to prevent just what is happening right
now: The Democratic Party is being pulverized by far-left loons who are
intimidating moderate Democrats and, in turn, imposing a radical agenda
on the party.
It is hard to picture John F. Kennedy embracing extremism like this, but
Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all seem to be fine with MoveOn and
its tactics, which is frightening, to say the least.
Congressman Baird is the rare exception in today's political arena. You
may disagree with his assessment of Iraq and his liberal voting record,
but the guy has guts. He made an independent assessment of Iraq after he
traveled there. He then came home and stated said assessment to his
constituents. He did what elected officials are supposed to do—examine
situations honestly. He does not deserve to be attacked by anyone.
There is nothing on the right that compares with the tactics used by
MoveOn and the reach it has purchased. These people have co-opted
fanatical left mainstream media people at the New York Times and NBC
News, among others, and can get their propaganda spread quickly. The
far-right has little, if any, access to the mainstream media.
So only a fool would dismiss the MoveOn outfit. Armed with tons of money
and zero scruples, it is subverting democracy by creating fear in the
political marketplace. When good men like Senator Lieberman and
Congressman Baird become targets of hate and defamation—and their own
party doesn't stick up for them—you know something is very wrong.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ouroboros_Rex" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
20 Nov 2007 11:59:13 AM |
|
|
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:HJadnZ56df283N_anZ2dnUVZ_u3inZ2d@comcast.com...
gzuckier@snail-mail.net wrote:
"By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a
new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we
got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel."
-Rush Limbaugh, Jan. 25 2007
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012507/content/truth_detect
or.LogIn.html
"Frankly, I think there's a First Amendment issue that goes well
beyond Rush Limbaugh, and that's the right of private citizens to have
discourse without the U.S. Congress or members of the Senate
leadership denouncing them." -Republican Rep. Jack Kingston telling
MSNBC why Democrats are wrong to criticize Rush Limbaugh for his
"phony soldiers" remark.
Kingston voted last week in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn
for its Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad.
By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
The Wall Street Journal did a good job this week of exposing the vicious
tactics of the far-left outfit "MoveOn." The story centers on Democratic
Congressman Brian Baird, an ardent opponent of the Iraq war, who
recently traveled to that hellish country and, surprisingly, came back
saying that the "surge" is improving things there.
Well, MoveOn and its internet hit men immediately began damning Baird
and even funded a TV commercial airing in his Washington State district
aimed at getting him out of office.
As the Journal put it, "[MoveOn] doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to
punish and silence Democrats who dare think for themselves."
And MoveOn has largely succeeded. Few Democrats want to be defamed and
attacked by an organization that has millions of dollars and no
standards of honesty. MoveOn and its character assassins have
infiltrated a variety of political websites and there are no rules.
The funding behind MoveOn comes from radical left-wing billionaires
George Soros and Peter Lewis, from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
which has assets of nearly $400 million, and from the ultra-liberal
"Tides Foundation." MoveOn members also donate.
So the operation is awash in dollars and can buy attack advertisements
all day long. Last year, Senator Joseph Lieberman lost the Democratic
primary in Connecticut largely because of MoveOn's blistering campaign
against him.
The two party system in America has always been delicate, and I believe
we need a vibrant third party to prevent just what is happening right
now: The Democratic Party is being pulverized by far-left loons who are
intimidating moderate Democrats and, in turn, imposing a radical agenda
on the party.
It is hard to picture John F. Kennedy embracing extremism like this, but
Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all seem to be fine with MoveOn and
its tactics, which is frightening, to say the least.
Congressman Baird is the rare exception in today's political arena. You
may disagree with his assessment of Iraq and his liberal voting record,
but the guy has guts. He made an independent assessment of Iraq after he
traveled there. He then came home and stated said assessment to his
constituents. He did what elected officials are supposed to do-examine
situations honestly. He does not deserve to be attacked by anyone.
There is nothing on the right that compares with the tactics used by
MoveOn and the reach it has purchased. These people have co-opted
fanatical left mainstream media people at the New York Times and NBC
News, among others, and can get their propaganda spread quickly. The
far-right has little, if any, access to the mainstream media.
So only a fool would dismiss the MoveOn outfit. Armed with tons of money
and zero scruples, it is subverting democracy by creating fear in the
political marketplace. When good men like Senator Lieberman and
Congressman Baird become targets of hate and defamation-and their own
party doesn't stick up for them-you know something is very wrong.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Poor lambourn just keeps on lying. lol
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting whatthey see in Iraq. |
20 Nov 2007 10:35:15 PM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, (Ubiquitous) wrote:
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing
It is simply breathtaking to watch the malice and negligence with
which the Bush Administration and the Angry Right have been
attempting to turn their criminal blunder in Iraq into a victory.
Too bad for all of us, Bush is a failure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting whatthey see in Iraq. |
21 Nov 2007 11:00:16 PM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, (Ubiquitous) wrote:
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing
It is simply breathtaking to watch the malice and negligence with
which the Bush Administration and the Angry Right have been
attempting to turn their criminal blunder in Iraq into a victory.
Too bad for all of us, Bush is a failure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting whatthey see in Iraq. |
20 Nov 2007 03:18:06 AM |
|
|
On Nov 19, 9:06 pm, (Ubiquitous) wrote:
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.- Hide quoted text -
It is simply breathtaking to watch the malice and negligence with
which the Bush Administration and the Angry Right have been
attempting to turn their criminal blunder in Iraq into a victory.
Too bad for all of us, Bush is a failure.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
06 Sep 2007 10:18:38 AM |
|
|
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in
news:upednRbrpZniZ0LbnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@giganews.com:
Nice to see some political backbone in Washington. Meanwhile, MoveOn
and its billionaire donors are out to solidify their ideological
control of the Democratic Party, even if that means denying what is
actually happening inside Iraq.
Are you a Bill O'Reilly fan?
O'Reilly has been trying to sell that snake oil on his radio show. He's
been telling his fans that MoveOn is funded by big donors. Half-wits
that they are, I'm sure many of his fans believe him. It's not true,
though. MoveOn gets its money from millions of everyday Americans and
we're not billionaires. We're just regular folks who are tired of (and
probably more than a little bit scared about) rightwing domination of the
media. We're willing to put-up a few dollars to defend the American
tradition of fair and open discussion of the issues.
You should change the station. The snake-oil doesn't really do you any
good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
14 Sep 2007 04:40:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
MoveOn gets its money from millions of everyday Americans and we're not
billionaires.
By now everyone knows that the New York Times published a full-page ad Monday
from the MoveOn.org political action committee attacking Gen. David Petraeus
in McCarthyite terms. Now the New York Post has confirmed what blogger Bob
Owens suspected. Reports the Post:
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the
liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad. . . .
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.
[Times PR director Abbe] Serphos declined to confirm the
price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper
would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
The Times advertising rate card (see page 5) lists a full-page weekday
political ad as costing $167,000 and change. An unidentified "Republican aide
on Capitol Hill" quipped that MoveOn got the "family discount." But this got
us to wondering: Would that be legal?
We consulted the Federal Elections Commission's Campaign Guide for
Corporations and Labor Organizations, updated in January, and here's what it
has to say about in-kind contributions (see page 14):
Services (such as advertising, printing or consulting) are valued
at the prevailing commercial rate at the time the services are
rendered (i.e., the amount that was paid or would have been paid
for the services).
Discounts are valued at the amount discounted (i.e., the
difference between the usual and normal charge and the amount
paid by the committee).
If a company sells an ad worth $167,000 for $65,000, then, that would be an
in-kind contribution of $102,000. Corporate contributions to PACs are illegal
under the campaign finance laws the Times itself has long championed:
"Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making contributions
in connection with federal elections," according to the FEC. (A corporation
may set up and administer a "separate segregated fund," or a corporate PAC,
which receives contributions from people associated with the company, but it
may not contribute to its own SSF or any other federally registered PAC.)
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign finance
laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in the Times is lower
than that in the rate card; maybe such deep "discounts" are routine and thus
not really discounts for the FEC's purposes. In either case, we can understand
why the Times's spokesmen are not eager to discuss the matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Carlisle" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
20 Sep 2007 03:04:59 PM |
|
|
In article <soydnSCPKfAmHHfbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign finance
laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in the Times is
lower than that in the rate card; maybe such deep "discounts" are routine
and thus not really discounts for the FEC's purposes. In either case, we
can understand why the Times's spokesmen are not eager to discuss the matter.
The New York Times is missing an obvious defense against accusations it gave
favorable rates to MoveOn.org--they didn't know it was a politically oriented
organization!
Remember that improbable claim that worked for the "Ethicist" columnist when
it was disclosed that, against Times rules, he contributed to MoveOn.org? If
Times employees don't even know who they are giving their own money to,
imagine how much less discriminating they are when taking money from others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
24 Sep 2007 01:37:50 PM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 4:04 pm, Peter Carlisle <wolfboyh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The New York Times is missing an obvious defense against accusations it gave
favorable rates to MoveOn.org--they didn't know it was a politically oriented
organization!
That argument might work, it if were applied to the Democratic Party.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
14 Sep 2007 12:13:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:40:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign finance
laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in the Times is lower
than that in the rate card; maybe such deep "discounts" are routine and thus
not really discounts for the FEC's purposes. In either case, we can understand
why the Times's spokesmen are not eager to discuss the matter.
The NYT has a long standing practice of giving deep discounts to NGOs
provided they don't specify any particular time or place in the paper
to appear. Rudy Giuliani has also taken out a page in the Times. He
paid exactly what Moveon did. (CNN about twenty minutes ago)
Swill
--
Money isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money.
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
17 Sep 2007 05:42:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:40:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign finance
laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in the Times is
lower than that in the rate card; maybe such deep "discounts" are routine
and thus not really discounts for the FEC's purposes. In either case, we
can understand why the Times's spokesmen are not eager to discuss the
matter.
The NYT has a long standing practice of giving deep discounts to NGOs
provided they don't specify any particular time or place in the paper
to appear.
In other words, the Times prices ads similarly to the way airlines price
seats: Not everyone pays full fare, and you can get a deep discount if you are
flexible. That allows the paper to sell space that might otherwise go unsold.
Assuming that this is all on the up-and-up, there's no legal problem, any more
than there is if a campaign pays less than full fare for a plane ticket.
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the desired effect
(or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly), it pretty much had to
run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would MoveOn buy an ad without
guaranteed placement? That would be like flying standby to your own wedding.
Maybe MoveOn figured out a way to game the Times's system. Perhaps, for
instance, it is possible to buy a full-price ad after learning that a standby
ad will not run on a given day (although that would seem to defeat the purpose
of the pricing scheme by allowing advertisers to get guaranteed placement
without necessarily paying for it).
But it may also be that the Times advertising department was overly
accommodating to MoveOn. Presumably the ad salesmen have an idea of how likely
a customer is to get the desired placement for a standby ad. If ad sales are
sluggish enough (and Crain's New York Business suggests they are), the
salesmen may know well in advance that a standby ad will run.
But if someone at the Times apprised the MoveOn.org PAC in advance that its
"standby" ad would definitely run Monday, then the Times gave the PAC
guaranteed placement at the standby rate--i.e., it sold something worth
$167,000 for $65,000. It is hard to see how that is anything other than an
in-kind contribution.
We live in an era of heavy regulation of campaign speech, thanks in part to
the persuasive efforts of the New York Times. It does not seem too much to ask
that the New York Times Co. adhere, with transparency and integrity, to the
high standards its editorialists seek to impose by law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "geno4321" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
17 Sep 2007 11:07:09 AM |
|
|
Move-On certainly have you Swiftboat queer neo-cons scared as hell.
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:YPudnXPka4ABx3PbnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@giganews.com...
governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:40:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign finance
laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in the Times is
lower than that in the rate card; maybe such deep "discounts" are routine
and thus not really discounts for the FEC's purposes. In either case, we
can understand why the Times's spokesmen are not eager to discuss the
matter.
The NYT has a long standing practice of giving deep discounts to NGOs
provided they don't specify any particular time or place in the paper
to appear.
In other words, the Times prices ads similarly to the way airlines price
seats: Not everyone pays full fare, and you can get a deep discount if you
are
flexible. That allows the paper to sell space that might otherwise go
unsold.
Assuming that this is all on the up-and-up, there's no legal problem, any
more
than there is if a campaign pays less than full fare for a plane ticket.
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the desired
effect
(or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly), it pretty much had
to
run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would MoveOn buy an ad without
guaranteed placement? That would be like flying standby to your own
wedding.
Maybe MoveOn figured out a way to game the Times's system. Perhaps, for
instance, it is possible to buy a full-price ad after learning that a
standby
ad will not run on a given day (although that would seem to defeat the
purpose
of the pricing scheme by allowing advertisers to get guaranteed placement
without necessarily paying for it).
But it may also be that the Times advertising department was overly
accommodating to MoveOn. Presumably the ad salesmen have an idea of how
likely
a customer is to get the desired placement for a standby ad. If ad sales
are
sluggish enough (and Crain's New York Business suggests they are), the
salesmen may know well in advance that a standby ad will run.
But if someone at the Times apprised the MoveOn.org PAC in advance that
its
"standby" ad would definitely run Monday, then the Times gave the PAC
guaranteed placement at the standby rate--i.e., it sold something worth
$167,000 for $65,000. It is hard to see how that is anything other than an
in-kind contribution.
We live in an era of heavy regulation of campaign speech, thanks in part
to
the persuasive efforts of the New York Times. It does not seem too much to
ask
that the New York Times Co. adhere, with transparency and integrity, to
the
high standards its editorialists seek to impose by law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
25 Nov 2007 05:47:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Move-On certainly have you Swiftboat queer neo-cons scared as hell.
Welcome to George Soros’s America
MoveOn.org bullies crack down on critics.
By Michelle Malkin
MoveOn.org, the left-wing extremists who bashed the commander of
American forces in Iraq as a traitor, should get out of the political
kitchen. The George Soros-funded hitmen can’t stand even a bit of heat
from Mom-and-Pop retailers who tried selling t-shirts and mugs on the
Internet critical of the “General Betray Us” smear ads against Gen.
David Petraeus.
I heard from one of the independent T-shirt sellers targeted by
MoveOn.org last week. The seller is a lifelong Democrat and member of
the military. Incensed by the attack on Gen. Petraeus, the retailer
opened up a shop at online store CafePress. The homemade designs at the
PoliStew Cafe were stark and simple: “Move Away from Move On!”
“MoveOn.org NoFriend to Dems.” “General Petraeus has done more for this
country than MoveOn.org.”
For daring to raise a voice and raise some money for the troops (all
proceeds from the sale of his items go to the National Military Family
Association charity), this t-shirt seller earned the wrath of
MoveOn.org’s lawyers. MoveOn.org chief operating officer Carrie Olson
brought down the sledgehammer. She sent a cease-and-desist letter to
CafePress demanding that PoliStew Cafe’s items and other anti-MoveOn.org
merchandise be removed from the store.
Olson warned: “We have been alerted to an entire page of items on your
website that infringes on our registered trademark, and we request that
you remove all items immediately, and ask the poster to refrain from
shipping any items purchased on this webpage. We also request that you
give us contact information for the company / person who posted the
items. This content has certainly NOT been authorized by anyone at
MoveOn.org, nor anyone affiliated with MoveOn.”
Acceptable speech to MoveOn.org: Likening President Bush to Adolf
Hitler, as they did in 2004.
Unacceptable speech: Little old mugs and hoodie sweatshirts gently
satirizing the thin-skinned, left-wing mafia.
The pretextual copyright infringement claims are downright laughable.
This isn’t about protecting MoveOn.org’s property rights. It’s about
shutting up citizens who don’t have the deep pockets to defend
themselves against frivolous claims by bullies in progressive clothing.
Sane liberals should be ashamed at such free speech-squelching efforts.
As Los Angeles Times blogger Jon Healey, the only other mainstream
journalist to cover the crackdown, notes: “Trademark law doesn’t confer
monopoly rights over all uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however,
and it wasn’t created simply to protect the trademark owner’s interests.
Instead, it’s designed to protect consumers against being misled or
confused about brands. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of
parodies and critiques; that’s why www.famousbrandnamesucks.com doesn’t
violate famousbrandname’s trademark. And most, if not all, of the items
targeted by MoveOn were clearly designed to razz it, not to trick buyers
into thinking they were the group’s products.”
CafePress refused to give in on several of the items. But the
speech-chilling message is clear: Parody MoveOn.org and they’ll threaten
to hunt you down and sue you. The PoliStew Cafe operator took down the
pro-Petraeus, anti-MoveOn.org shirts and replaced them instead with
merchandise referring to “THE GROUP THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED.” An army of
MoveOn mockers online has published photoshopped logos (“MoveOut.org,”
“MoveOn.org: Surrender in Action”) in solidarity — daring the far-Left
lawyers to sue them.
Edward Padgett, a Los Angeles blogger who spread the word about MoveOn’s
attempt to silence critics, laments: “For several years I have found
MoveOn.org to be an inspirational anti-war group, but the past few weeks
they have been an embarrassment to all Americans with their attacks upon
President Bush and General Petraeus. I subscribe to the MoveOn
newsletter, and even considered hosting an antiwar rally in San Dimas,
but now I want no part of this radical group and will remove my name
from their newsletter subscription . . . I guess to MoveOn, the First
Amendment is only for the rich.”
Dissent-silencing tactics approved, apparently, by the MoveOn.org
Democrats who are too busy bashing Rush Limbaugh to notice the gagging
of ordinary citizens on their own side of the political aisle.
Welcome to George Soros’s America.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting whatthey see in Iraq. |
27 Nov 2007 01:13:58 AM |
|
|
On Nov 25, 6:47 pm, (Ubiquitous) wrote:
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
***** Cheney, April 1991:
"I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil
war inside Iraq
would literally be a QUAGMIRE. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we
do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have?
Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish
government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba'ath Party?
Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States
wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the
responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at
all."
LTG (RET) RICARDO S. SANCHEZ. Former commander US forces,Iraq. 12
OCTOBER 2007
"THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS. AS A JAPANESE
PROVERB SAYS, "ACTION WITHOUT VISION IS A NIGHTMARE."
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT AMERICA IS LIVING A NIGHTMARE WITH NO END IN
SIGHT"
"AFTER MORE THAN FOUR YEARS OF FIGHTING, AMERICA CONTINUES ITS
DESPERATE STRUGGLE IN IRAQ WITHOUT ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO DEVISE A
STRATEGY THAT WILL ACHIEVE "VICTORY" IN THAT WAR TORN COUNTRY OR IN
THE GREATER CONFLICT AGAINST EXTREMISM. FROM A CATASTROPHICALLY
FLAWED, UNREALISTICALLY OPTIMISTIC WAR PLAN TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S
LATEST "SURGE" STRATEGY, THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO EMPLOY AND
SYNCHRONIZE ITS POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER. THE LATEST
"REVISED STRATEGY" IS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT BY AN ADMINISTRATION THAT
HAS
NOT ACCEPTED THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THIS WAR AND THEY
HAVE DEFINITELY NOT COMMUNICATED THAT REALITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"
"THE BEST WE CAN DO WITH THIS FLAWED APPROACH IS STAVE OFF DEFEAT. THE
ADMINISTRATION, CONGRESS AND THE ENTIRE INTERAGENCY, ESPECIALLY THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MUST SHOULDER THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS
CATASTROPHIC FAILURE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST HOLD THEM
ACCOUNTABLE."
"NEGLECT AND INCOMPETENCE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL LEVEL,
THAT IS THE PATH OUR POLITICAL LEADERS CHOSE"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting whatthey see in Iraq. |
26 Nov 2007 12:48:57 PM |
|
|
On Nov 25, 6:47 pm, (Ubiquitous) wrote:
eugenefk...@fuse.net wrote:
Move-On certainly have you Swiftboat queer neo-cons scared as hell.
Welcome to George Soros's America
MoveOn.org bullies crack down on critics.
By Michelle Malkin
MoveOn.org, the left-wing extremists who bashed the commander of
American forces in Iraq as a traitor, should get out of the political
kitchen. The George Soros-funded hitmen can't stand even a bit of heat
from Mom-and-Pop retailers who tried selling t-shirts and mugs on the
Internet critical of the "General Betray Us" smear ads against Gen.
David Petraeus.
I heard from one of the independent T-shirt sellers targeted by
MoveOn.org last week. The seller is a lifelong Democrat and member of
the military. Incensed by the attack on Gen. Petraeus, the retailer
opened up a shop at online store CafePress. The homemade designs at the
PoliStew Cafe were stark and simple: "Move Away from Move On!"
"MoveOn.org NoFriend to Dems." "General Petraeus has done more for this
country than MoveOn.org."
For daring to raise a voice and raise some money for the troops (all
proceeds from the sale of his items go to the National Military Family
Association charity), this t-shirt seller earned the wrath of
MoveOn.org's lawyers. MoveOn.org chief operating officer Carrie Olson
brought down the sledgehammer. She sent a cease-and-desist letter to
CafePress demanding that PoliStew Cafe's items and other anti-MoveOn.org
merchandise be removed from the store.
Olson warned: "We have been alerted to an entire page of items on your
website that infringes on our registered trademark, and we request that
you remove all items immediately, and ask the poster to refrain from
shipping any items purchased on this webpage. We also request that you
give us contact information for the company / person who posted the
items. This content has certainly NOT been authorized by anyone at
MoveOn.org, nor anyone affiliated with MoveOn."
Acceptable speech to MoveOn.org: Likening President Bush to Adolf
Hitler, as they did in 2004.
Unacceptable speech: Little old mugs and hoodie sweatshirts gently
satirizing the thin-skinned, left-wing mafia.
The pretextual copyright infringement claims are downright laughable.
This isn't about protecting MoveOn.org's property rights. It's about
shutting up citizens who don't have the deep pockets to defend
themselves against frivolous claims by bullies in progressive clothing.
Sane liberals should be ashamed at such free speech-squelching efforts.
As Los Angeles Times blogger Jon Healey, the only other mainstream
journalist to cover the crackdown, notes: "Trademark law doesn't confer
monopoly rights over all uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however,
and it wasn't created simply to protect the trademark owner's interests.
Instead, it's designed to protect consumers against being misled or
confused about brands. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of
parodies and critiques; that's whywww.famousbrandnamesucks.comdoesn't
violate famousbrandname's trademark. And most, if not all, of the items
targeted by MoveOn were clearly designed to razz it, not to trick buyers
into thinking they were the group's products."
CafePress refused to give in on several of the items. But the
speech-chilling message is clear: Parody MoveOn.org and they'll threaten
to hunt you down and sue you. The PoliStew Cafe operator took down the
pro-Petraeus, anti-MoveOn.org shirts and replaced them instead with
merchandise referring to "THE GROUP THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED." An army of
MoveOn mockers online has published photoshopped logos ("MoveOut.org,"
"MoveOn.org: Surrender in Action") in solidarity -- daring the far-Left
lawyers to sue them.
Edward Padgett, a Los Angeles blogger who spread the word about MoveOn's
attempt to silence critics, laments: "For several years I have found
MoveOn.org to be an inspirational anti-war group, but the past few weeks
they have been an embarrassment to all Americans with their attacks upon
President Bush and General Petraeus. I subscribe to the MoveOn
newsletter, and even considered hosting an antiwar rally in San Dimas,
but now I want no part of this radical group and will remove my name
from their newsletter subscription . . . I guess to MoveOn, the First
Amendment is only for the rich."
Dissent-silencing tactics approved, apparently, by the MoveOn.org
Democrats who are too busy bashing Rush Limbaugh to notice the gagging
of ordinary citizens on their own side of the political aisle.
Welcome to George Soros's America.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Gee, how sad. If only they had restricted themselves to speaking out
against Moveon.org, rather than make a buck out of it, they could have
slobbered along nicely. I don't imagine that, for instance, there
would have been a Congressional resolution decrying slander of
Moveon.org, that's a benefit available only to administration
mouthpieces.
I'm surprised to see you being so critical of our laws protecting an
individual or group's rights to its property, including intellectual
property such as trade names, copyrights, etc. You pinko.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
18 Sep 2007 12:03:19 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:42:16 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the desired effect
(or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly), it pretty much had to
run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would MoveOn buy an ad without
guaranteed placement? That would be like flying standby to your own wedding.
The Monday paper would be a great place to get a cheap ad. All the
big bucks have been spent on the Thursday through Sunday editions.
Swill
--
Money isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money.
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
18 Sep 2007 07:46:23 AM |
|
|
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dtmue3hsqm6aeld6b2lk7o3otbevvv73io@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:42:16 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly),
it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would
MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed placement? That would be like
flying standby to your own wedding.
The Monday paper would be a great place to get a cheap ad. All the
big bucks have been spent on the Thursday through Sunday editions.
Swill
So the lower rate reflects the space's lower advertising value.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
18 Sep 2007 10:50:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:46:23 -0000, Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dtmue3hsqm6aeld6b2lk7o3otbevvv73io@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:42:16 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly),
it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would
MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed placement? That would be like
flying standby to your own wedding.
The Monday paper would be a great place to get a cheap ad. All the
big bucks have been spent on the Thursday through Sunday editions.
Swill
So the lower rate reflects the space's lower advertising value.
Apparently.
Swill
--
Money isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money.
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
18 Sep 2007 01:50:55 PM |
|
|
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ktsve39vf7s12jp3e785vjlimq0khd1bkc@4ax.com:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:46:23 -0000, Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:dtmue3hsqm6aeld6b2lk7o3otbevvv73io@4ax.com:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:42:16 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly),
it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would
MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed placement? That would be like
flying standby to your own wedding.
The Monday paper would be a great place to get a cheap ad. All the
big bucks have been spent on the Thursday through Sunday editions.
Swill
So the lower rate reflects the space's lower advertising value.
Apparently.
Swill
That seems like market-driven pricing to me.
I wonder while all the laissez-faire-capitalist-loving neocon wingnuts are
upset.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
19 Sep 2007 01:33:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:50:55 -0000, Joe Steel <JoeSteel@NoSpam.com>
wrote:
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly),
it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would
MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed placement? That would be like
flying standby to your own wedding.
The Monday paper would be a great place to get a cheap ad. All the
big bucks have been spent on the Thursday through Sunday editions.
So the lower rate reflects the space's lower advertising value.
Apparently.
Swill
That seems like market-driven pricing to me.
Exactly.
I wonder while all the laissez-faire-capitalist-loving neocon wingnuts are
upset.
Because partisans are all too eager to put aside facts in order to put
down the object of their fears.
Swill
--
Money isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money.
Picture of the day
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
17 Sep 2007 09:33:05 AM |
|
|
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in
news:YPudnXPka4ABx3PbnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@giganews.com:
governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:40:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign
finance laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in
the Times is lower than that in the rate card; maybe such deep
"discounts" are routine and thus not really discounts for the FEC's
purposes. In either case, we can understand why the Times's spokesmen
are not eager to discuss the matter.
The NYT has a long standing practice of giving deep discounts to NGOs
provided they don't specify any particular time or place in the paper
to appear.
In other words, the Times prices ads similarly to the way airlines
price seats: Not everyone pays full fare, and you can get a deep
discount if you are flexible. That allows the paper to sell space that
might otherwise go unsold. Assuming that this is all on the up-and-up,
there's no legal problem, any more than there is if a campaign pays
less than full fare for a plane ticket.
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly),
it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would
MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed placement? That would be like
flying standby to your own wedding.
Maybe MoveOn figured out a way to game the Times's system. Perhaps,
for instance, it is possible to buy a full-price ad after learning
that a standby ad will not run on a given day (although that would
seem to defeat the purpose of the pricing scheme by allowing
advertisers to get guaranteed placement without necessarily paying for
it).
But it may also be that the Times advertising department was overly
accommodating to MoveOn. Presumably the ad salesmen have an idea of
how likely a customer is to get the desired placement for a standby
ad. If ad sales are sluggish enough (and Crain's New York Business
suggests they are), the salesmen may know well in advance that a
standby ad will run.
But if someone at the Times apprised the MoveOn.org PAC in advance
that its "standby" ad would definitely run Monday, then the Times gave
the PAC guaranteed placement at the standby rate--i.e., it sold
something worth $167,000 for $65,000. It is hard to see how that is
anything other than an in-kind contribution.
We live in an era of heavy regulation of campaign speech, thanks in
part to the persuasive efforts of the New York Times. It does not seem
too much to ask that the New York Times Co. adhere, with transparency
and integrity, to the high standards its editorialists seek to impose
by law.
I don't agree with your premise. The ad was not particularly time-
sensitive. It didn't have to run on Monday. It could have run anytime
last week and still would have been quite effective.
It is effective, by-the-way. Even when Fox News personalities say
Petraeus it sounds like Betrayus. Tens of millions of Americans are
hearing it that way and are thinking it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
20 Sep 2007 06:39:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:40:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign
finance laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in
the Times is lower than that in the rate card; maybe such deep
"discounts" are routine and thus not really discounts for the FEC's
purposes. In either case, we can understand why the Times's spokesmen
are not eager to discuss the matter.
The NYT has a long standing practice of giving deep discounts to NGOs
provided they don't specify any particular time or place in the paper
to appear.
In other words, the Times prices ads similarly to the way airlines
price seats: Not everyone pays full fare, and you can get a deep
discount if you are flexible. That allows the paper to sell space that
might otherwise go unsold. Assuming that this is all on the up-and-up,
there's no legal problem, any more than there is if a campaign pays
less than full fare for a plane ticket.
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire spectacularly),
it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such circumstances, why would
MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed placement? That would be like
flying standby to your own wedding.
Maybe MoveOn figured out a way to game the Times's system. Perhaps,
for instance, it is possible to buy a full-price ad after learning
that a standby ad will not run on a given day (although that would
seem to defeat the purpose of the pricing scheme by allowing
advertisers to get guaranteed placement without necessarily paying for
it).
But it may also be that the Times advertising department was overly
accommodating to MoveOn. Presumably the ad salesmen have an idea of
how likely a customer is to get the desired placement for a standby
ad. If ad sales are sluggish enough (and Crain's New York Business
suggests they are), the salesmen may know well in advance that a
standby ad will run.
But if someone at the Times apprised the MoveOn.org PAC in advance
that its "standby" ad would definitely run Monday, then the Times gave
the PAC guaranteed placement at the standby rate--i.e., it sold
something worth $167,000 for $65,000. It is hard to see how that is
anything other than an in-kind contribution.
We live in an era of heavy regulation of campaign speech, thanks in
part to the persuasive efforts of the New York Times. It does not seem
too much to ask that the New York Times Co. adhere, with transparency
and integrity, to the high standards its editorialists seek to impose
by law.
I don't agree with your premise. The ad was not particularly time-
sensitive. It didn't have to run on Monday. It could have run anytime
last week and still would have been quite effective.
The trouble with this defense is that the MoveOn ad was time-sensitive. It
said (emphasis mine), "TODAY, before Congress and before the American people,
General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us." Why would MoveOn
accept standby terms for an ad pegged to a particular day?
Here is an interesting conundrum: The Washington Times notes that the New York
Times last week published a rebuttal to the MoveOn ad from the Giuliani
campaign. Giuliani got the same rate that MoveOn got, and the ad ran the day
the campaign wanted it to (whether or not this was promised in advance). Does
this insulate the Times from campaign finance issues?
It would seem so, since it's evidence of a lack of favoritism. But not so
fast. If the New York Times Co. were to write a check to MoveOn.org and a
check in the same amount to the Giuliani campaign, they wouldn't cancel each
other out. The company would be guilty of two illegal contributions. The same
logic would apply to in-kind contributions, would it not?
It may be that the Times's advertising rate structure is so complicated that
it is impossible to prove either that it has been corrupted in this case or
that it has not. It would be a lovely irony if it turns out that the campaign
finance restrictions the Times has championed are unenforceable in the Times's
own business.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Steel" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
24 Sep 2007 11:48:50 AM |
|
|
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in
news:DtGdneD63-k2mW7bnZ2dnUVZ_u3inZ2d@giganews.com:
JoeSteel@NoSpam.com wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:40:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign
finance laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in
the Times is lower than that in the rate card; maybe such deep
"discounts" are routine and thus not really discounts for the FEC's
purposes. In either case, we can understand why the Times's
spokesmen are not eager to discuss the matter.
The NYT has a long standing practice of giving deep discounts to
NGOs provided they don't specify any particular time or place in the
paper to appear.
In other words, the Times prices ads similarly to the way airlines
price seats: Not everyone pays full fare, and you can get a deep
discount if you are flexible. That allows the paper to sell space
that might otherwise go unsold. Assuming that this is all on the
up-and-up, there's no legal problem, any more than there is if a
campaign pays less than full fare for a plane ticket.
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire
spectacularly), it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such
circumstances, why would MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed
placement? That would be like flying standby to your own wedding.
Maybe MoveOn figured out a way to game the Times's system. Perhaps,
for instance, it is possible to buy a full-price ad after learning
that a standby ad will not run on a given day (although that would
seem to defeat the purpose of the pricing scheme by allowing
advertisers to get guaranteed placement without necessarily paying
for it).
But it may also be that the Times advertising department was overly
accommodating to MoveOn. Presumably the ad salesmen have an idea of
how likely a customer is to get the desired placement for a standby
ad. If ad sales are sluggish enough (and Crain's New York Business
suggests they are), the salesmen may know well in advance that a
standby ad will run.
But if someone at the Times apprised the MoveOn.org PAC in advance
that its "standby" ad would definitely run Monday, then the Times
gave the PAC guaranteed placement at the standby rate--i.e., it sold
something worth $167,000 for $65,000. It is hard to see how that is
anything other than an in-kind contribution.
We live in an era of heavy regulation of campaign speech, thanks in
part to the persuasive efforts of the New York Times. It does not
seem too much to ask that the New York Times Co. adhere, with
transparency and integrity, to the high standards its editorialists
seek to impose by law.
I don't agree with your premise. The ad was not particularly time-
sensitive. It didn't have to run on Monday. It could have run
anytime last week and still would have been quite effective.
The trouble with this defense is that the MoveOn ad was
time-sensitive. It said (emphasis mine), "TODAY, before Congress and
before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become
General Betray Us." Why would MoveOn accept standby terms for an ad
pegged to a particular day?
Here is an interesting conundrum: The Washington Times notes that the
New York Times last week published a rebuttal to the MoveOn ad from
the Giuliani campaign. Giuliani got the same rate that MoveOn got, and
the ad ran the day the campaign wanted it to (whether or not this was
promised in advance). Does this insulate the Times from campaign
finance issues?
It would seem so, since it's evidence of a lack of favoritism. But not
so fast. If the New York Times Co. were to write a check to MoveOn.org
and a check in the same amount to the Giuliani campaign, they wouldn't
cancel each other out. The company would be guilty of two illegal
contributions. The same logic would apply to in-kind contributions,
would it not?
It may be that the Times's advertising rate structure is so
complicated that it is impossible to prove either that it has been
corrupted in this case or that it has not. It would be a lovely irony
if it turns out that the campaign finance restrictions the Times has
championed are unenforceable in the Times's own business.
As I write this Bill O'Reilly is saying the Times lied about the
circumstances of MoveOn's rate. He's saying it WAS a special rate given
to MoveOn because on the publisher's orders. Maybe that makes Giuliani's
rate normal for that kind of ad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: MoveOn vs. Democrats: Punishing congressmen for reporting what they see in Iraq. |
25 Sep 2007 08:40:30 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns99B5782D55A8Bmahvsbcglobalnet@216.168.3.70>,
JoeSteel@NoSpam.com wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in
news:DtGdneD63-k2mW7bnZ2dnUVZ_u3inZ2d@giganews.com:
JoeSteel@NoSpam.com wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:40:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:
There may be an explanation here that does not implicate campaign
finance laws. Perhaps the "prevailing commercial rate" for an ad in
the Times is lower than that in the rate card; maybe such deep
"discounts" are routine and thus not really discounts for the FEC's
purposes. In either case, we can understand why the Times's
spokesmen are not eager to discuss the matter.
The NYT has a long standing practice of giving deep discounts to
NGOs provided they don't specify any particular time or place in the
paper to appear.
In other words, the Times prices ads similarly to the way airlines
price seats: Not everyone pays full fare, and you can get a deep
discount if you are flexible. That allows the paper to sell space
that might otherwise go unsold. Assuming that this is all on the
up-and-up, there's no legal problem, any more than there is if a
campaign pays less than full fare for a plane ticket.
But wait. This was a very time-sensitive ad. For it to have the
desired effect (or, as actually happened, to backfire
spectacularly), it pretty much had to run Monday. Under such
circumstances, why would MoveOn buy an ad without guaranteed
placement? That would be like flying standby to your own wedding.
Maybe MoveOn figured out a way to game the Times's system. Perhaps,
for instance, it is possible to buy a full-price ad after learning
that a standby ad will not run on a given day (although that would
seem to defeat the purpose of the pricing scheme by allowing
advertisers to get guaranteed placement without necessarily paying
for it).
But it may also be that the Times advertising department was overly
accommodating to MoveOn. Presumably the ad salesmen have an idea of
how likely a customer is to get the desired placement for a standby
ad. If ad sales are sluggish enough (and Crain's New York Business
suggests they are), the salesmen may know well in advance that a
standby ad will run.
But if someone at the Times apprised the MoveOn.org PAC in advance
that its "standby" ad would definitely run Monday, then the Times
gave the PAC guaranteed placement at the standby rate--i.e., it sold
something worth $167,000 for $65,000. It is hard to see how that is
anything other than an in-kind contribution.
We live in an era of heavy regulation of campaign speech, thanks in
part to the persuasive efforts of the New York Times. It does not
seem too much to ask that the New York Times Co. adhere, with
transparency and integrity, to the high standards its editorialists
seek to impose by law.
I don't ag | | | | | | | | |
