New NY State License Plate Revealed—And Required On All Cars
Cops: Columbia Prof Punched Woman In "White Privilege" Brawl
Despite Gay Brothers, State Sen. Diaz Still Anti-Gay Marriage
Flashback: Last Brownstone Standing
Cops: Fort Greene Violence Sparked By Chicken Wing Promotion
If The New York Times needs a rationale for allegedly discounting the ad rate it offered the advocacy group MoveOn for its ad alleging that General Petraeus was betraying his country my misrepresenting the true state of Iraq, we suggest characterizing it as a loss leader, because a lot of ink is being spilled and paid for in response to it.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani hasn't even won the Republican nomination yet, but he's already lashing out at Democrats––and fellow NY politician Sen. Hillary Clinton in particular––for adopting a tone that was skeptical towards Gen. Petraeus's testimony before the Senate. Giuliani's ad, which he's actively soliciting campaign contributions to put in print, equates and contrasts Sen. Clinton's silence regarding MoveOn's stance with Petraeus's career of military service. Giuliani asked for and received an equal rate to run his ad in the Times today.
Adding to the controversy surrounding the ad and anyone's response to it is the fact that The New York Times charged MoveOn significantly less than the standard quoted rate for a full-page political advocacy ad. To many, this is another piece of "smoking gun" evidence supporting accusations of political bias that have been leveled against the paper for ages. In an ironic twist, some people are arguing that any discount given to MoveOn should count as a financial contribution to a political cause or candidate and could qualify as a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance rules that the paper enthusiastically supported. The Times says that it didn't give MoveOn any preferential pricing and that the rates advertisers are offered are based on the timing and basis of placement, which in this case was completely normal.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
but wait . . . .
wait . .
(9/11)
what a stupid ad by a stupid man
Whoever is on TV the most and is the loudest wins. Reality is irrelevant.
moveon wins this by default. They suck only slightly less than the Giuliani ad.
The only thing that makes me angry is the fact that the MoveOn ad was completely correct (about the report being "cooked") but that's not what the argument is about.
That's standard operating procedure for conservatives on many issues, moneda. When you can't win an argument based on evidence, malign the other side. The bizarre anti-evolution crowd and global warming deniers do this all the time and, of course, Karl Rove has turned doing this into a fine art.
BOYCOTT THE NY TIMES ! ! !
I do because they have absolutely no clue about world issues, remember how badly they screwed up the reporting on the war between Hezi terrorists and Israel last summer?
CLEAR BUSH
Say a dirge
For the surge.
Dump the glut
With a cut.
Bush the man
With a plan!
Change too quick?
Check with Dick.
I don't know how Petraeus can sleep at night. At least Bush is a deluded, egomaniacal moron, so he can forgo the Sominex. Petraeus should be tossing and turning all night long for toeing the White House line, the same way Colin Powell did.
Duh, obviously politicians and people who post on blogs know more than a 4 star genereal. I mean, obviously.
Sandy Berger is now advising Hillary. You know, the guy that stole the after action report of 2000 from the national archives and stashed them under a construction trailer. The report where Clinton wrote No No No in the margins about plans to go after Al Qaeda. Guess he was too busy getting his dick sucked but another fat pig.
Duh, obviously politicians and people who post on blogs know more than a 4 star genereal. I mean, obviously.
Sandy Berger is now advising Hillary. You know, the guy that stole the after action report of 2000 from the national archives and stashed them under a construction trailer. The report where Clinton wrote No No No in the margins about plans to go after Al Qaeda. Guess he was too busy getting his dick sucked but another fat pig.
I don't like Queen Hillary, another royal (like Bush, Kennedy, you name it...) family preparing to put the screws to us.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
Please vote all these wretched fiends from power...please consider another candidate than Mrs. Clinton.
So we are never to question anyone in the military? Come on.
Yes, no one in the military should ever be questioned, much like the "military-industrial complex"...
So we are never to question anyone in the military? Come on.
That's ironic. Barbara Boxer took her allotted time and went on and on without asking Petraeus a single question. Guess she likes the sound of her own voice.
Hmmm, lets see... Politicians word... or our Commanding General, and Ambassitor's??? I'll choose the latter.
Note who is making this a partisan issue...
#11, You mean the guy that stole a copy of a report from the national archives, right?
Are you reading fiction again? Wait. I know! You believed that propaganda piece ABC put on called "The Path to 9/11"! The one that even conservatives attacked as being fictional.
Facts are a Bitch, aren't they?
glennQNYC, in all respect, It's up to you to choose, but I'd rather listen to the GSA which is based on facts, not politics. If you don't think Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker are influenced by politics. IMO, your mistaken.
More On topic: As the former Mayor "9/11 Whore" Giuliani knows, MoveOn.org is NOT the Democratic Party. While I think the MoveOn Adv. was over the top, IMO, Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker were less then truthful. Both portrayed a Rosy tilt in Iraq, despite the actual reality.
Has anyone else noticed that the Administration always needs "6 more months" for Everything?
despite the actual reality.
And you know exactly what that is? Not taking sides but c'mon, what's your source? The press? The rarely leave the Green Zone. Facts are indeed a bitch.
Guest #15, that's the second time you've mentioned what Boxer talked about, but I'm sure you know that she was referencing an Op-ed published in the NYT by seven current U.S. soldiers in Iraq, two of whom just died in Iraq? I'm sure you know that, now don't you? You know what those soldiers said, too, don't you? Come on, do you need some help with this?
#18 How's the GAO Report for you?
What about the Soldiers on the ground?
How about Michael Ware from CNN who is there?
How about Lara Logon of CBS?
Let me guess, the GOA is also part of the "biased Liberal Media", right?
Try this:
- Take a deep Breath
- Stop drinking the Kool Aid.
- Listen to other sources than this Administration
- Do some RESEARCH.
.If your basing your "facts" just on what the administration is telling you, your being lazy.But we know your already a bit lazy as you don't register and keep using "guest".
Well, Glenn, I guess you don't know that Petraeus' commanding officer, Admiral Fallon of Centcom called him a ass-kissing little chickenshit, eh? This is the same Admiral that it's reported to want the troops pulled out. But, I guess you really don't get to hear all of the Commanders and Ambassdors, do you? No, only the ones that Bush wants to parade in front of you. There have been calls to have Fallon testify before the Senate Committee.
And let me ask you: if Fallon does testify and says that the troops need to leave, would you believe him? I've noticed a lot when military people speak out and it doesn't jibe with the administration, all of sudden they are demoted and retired. If Fallon does come out and says that the troops need to be pulled out, I'd give him less than four months in his current position. What about you?
Someone needs to relax, S.D.. I do my own research. I don't "drink the Kool Aid". I was never in favor of the war. I simply asked for your sources. Maybe if you weren't such a reactionary asshole you would have noticed I was asking you politely in the hopes you would enlighten me with something I haven't found on my own. However, when you use the phrase "actual reality" you seem to be implying that you or your sources know exactly what "reality" is. I only came back with the suggestion that it is unlikely we'll get a complete picture of reality beyond "it's really violent in Iraq".
As for the "lazy" and "register" reaction, what's the point? You'll simply attack me by name and never answer my questions. Since you hate the guest comments so much why don't you turn them off.
Assuming Guest #22 is the same as # 11 and #18 (Who can tell? He's too foolish to even sign his posts...):
- You sure seem to drink the kool aid.
- I never said you were in favor of the war, Never even implied it (See Kool Aid Remark)
- I've kept it pretty civil and I'm the "reactionary asshole"? Uh-huh. (Again, Kool Aid...)
- Politely? Seemed Sarcastic to me. Mea Culpa, from the "reactionary asshole". Also, You could have googled it instead of making me look it up for you. (To wit, Lazy)
- "it's really violent in Iraq"? Um, Are you saying it's Not? What are your sources of info? Fox News?
What's the point? Well, Oh Very Lazy one, you'd be able to take credit where credit is due. At least use a signature. You could use "Reactionary Asshole" to identify yourself.It fits and you sure seem to be one.
I don't pretend to know what her problem is/was. But we should question everything.
S.D. I can tell you I did write 18 and 22 but not 11. You sure do have a mouth on you.
I'll ask you another question that I'm sure you'll never answer (since you never do), if I'm not in favor of the war, never was in favor of the war, and am skeptcal of Petraeus, how exactly am I drinking the Kool Aid? Oh right, because you say so. Anyone that dares to question you must be a Bush supporter and a Republican! I forgot how easy it all is.
"it's really violent in Iraq"? Um, Are you saying it's Not?
Um, I'm saying it is. Having trouble reading? What is your malfunction?
And your fixation on signatures is silly.
I never said you were in favor of the war, Never even implied it (See Kool Aid Remark)
Then what does "Stop drinking the Kool Aid" mean?
And by the way, your sources sucked. Not the content so much but really, I thought you were going to come back with something much more comprehensive. Calling me lazy when you your source material is Google and CBS is funny. I read much better material than that. I only asked because you said you know exactly what the "reality" in Iraq is. Really, still waiting to hear your perspective.
Tim N., If you read this, I think you have the right idea regarding "guests"...
Back to "Reactionary Asshole" (That's my name for you since you refuse to be identified):
I love it! I'm called a "Reactionary Asshole" and he/she comes back with "You sure do have a mouth on you"...
Will you Stop drinking the Kool Aid? You obviously Spiked it.
#25, 26, 27, (Again, Assuming its the same "Reactionary Asshole") You really should think about composing your thoughts better before you hit the "Post" button. 3 comments?
To answer you question, O "Reactionary Asshole", "Stop drinking the Kool Aid" Means I think your Off Base. As I said, I never said you were in favor of the war, Never even implied it.
So, With Feeling, Take a deep Breath and Stop drinking the Kool Aid.
As you were, I'm Done. Elvis has left the building.
S.D. How is asking you what you think "reality" in Iraq is "off base"? I interpreted your comment on Kool Aid to mean you thought I believed everything Petraeus said. You're right, you didn't say I backed the war but it didn't seem like a large leap given the way you went right at me. And I think you're using the expression incorrectly.
Go back to post 18 and answer the question.
Edlerta at #19, yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about. But thanks for the obnoxious tone.
Maybe, given that there was a hearing going on with, you know, a witness sitting there waiting to testify, she might have asked a question. She was grandstanding. you know it. You just won't admit it. It doesn't make the op-ed wrong. It just means Boxer was grandstanding. There's a time for everything and that wasn't it.
This just proves that you guys won't aim your criticism at your side. Ever. I'm skeptical of both sides. So speaking of drinking the Kool Aid. . . .
Well, guest, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then maybe you should actually do a little research...
The only criticism you can offer is that Boxer was grandstanding, yet the last six years of Bush in office have been one giant lie day in and day out. And Boxer grandstanding is your biggest problem?
Yeah, at least my Kool Aid ain't the killing kind.
Well, guest, if you don't know what I'm talking about, then maybe you should actually do a little research...
I was obviously being sarcastic. This thing you guys do where you tell people to "do the research" is tiresome. If you have a point to make, make it. Another person can be just as informed about a topic as you are and but when you make vague statements it is often the case that others don't know what specific things you are referencing. I know all about the op-ed. Acting like I don't is childish on your part. But what was your point? S.D. did the same thing. He links a bunch of sources but makes no argument. I can draw my own conclusions. I thought the point was for him to draw his, explain them, and defend them. But you guys never do that. And he calls me lazy!
And by the way, letting Boxer off the hook because of Bush's behavior for the last six years is a stupid argument. One has nothing to do with the other. Or in simple terms, two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe you have noticed Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush. Maybe it's because all they do is talk when there is a camera present?
And Boxer grandstanding is your biggest problem?
**sarcasm begins** Yeah, that's exactly what I said. **sarcasm ends** I know your sarcasm detector is broken. Just helping out.
Yeah, at least my Kool Aid ain't the killing kind.
Depends on your point of view.
Guest, is no matter what the sources brought before people who support this war, they always find a way to move the line regarding the evidence they want. The GAO report isn't enough for you, soldiers on the ground isn't enough for you, two reporters who actually report isn't enough for you. In other words, it doesn't matter what either I or S.D. or anyone says to you, your answer is always the same: show me the facts; I won't ever agree with them because your facts suck; but show me your facts anyway. Oh wait, you say you didn't want sources, you wanted points! Move that line! You didn't ask for points in the first place, you asked for sources, and when sources are given, you say they aren't good enough and that you need a point instead. Make up your mind, please.
Of course, when or if you read this, you'll move the line again and think nothing of it.
I will say again, we're in the middle of a war and your only concern is Boxer grandstanding? Did you complain when a Republican grandstanded during the Gonzales hearing without asking questions? (Here you are free to move the line, as I'm sure you will.) Two wrongs don't make a right, but really, I will say again, your only problem with Boxer is that she talked without asking a question? Really?
As to the KoolAid, it is a matter of points of view, obviously. However, it's the 27% of current Kool-Aid drinkers that are sticking with a military policy in Iraq that obviously isn't working. But keep on worrying about Boxer grandstanding. I'm sure that will help the situation immensely.
What I meant by S.D.'s sources "sucking" was that the CBS video and the soldier's op-ed are two tiny pieces of evidence that hardly constitute the big picture. Not saying that aren't valid but what I was really hoping was that S.D. would talk about the big picture and the "reality" as he sees it, especially with regard to the future of the conflict which is ultimately the purpose of having the hearings in the first place.
And no Barbara Boxer is not my primary concern. It may be hard to fathom that people can simultaneously hold many thoughts. In the context of the hearings, I think it is relevent. and the hearings are what this thread is all about. Other Senators managed to ask inteligent probing questions (see Joe Biden). I still fail to see the relevence of the op-ed in the context of the hearings. John Kerry was quoting it again today on MTP. nobody makes war decisions based on what a few soldiers in the field have to say. Sorry, but that is also reality.
As for Kool Aid (once again) when you accuse someone of drinking the Kool-Aid you are implying they buy into whatever someone is saying without questioning it. I'm sure you know this. I don't know whay S.D. said I was buying the Kool Aid becuase I have not once taken the position that Petreaus or Bush are correct in anything.
Petraeus, the same cheerleader who wrote an op-ed piece several years ago, painting a rosy picture of the war at the time??? Only reason he is in charge over there is because he is a yes man, the only kind of people that Busg surrounds himself with.
And why are even listening to these people anymore, they have been wrong about everything that has happened until now, why should we listen to their dire predictions about a pull out????
WOW I THOUGHT THIS WAS A BLOG ABOUT NEW YORK CITY LIFE. IF I WANTED TO READ THIS SHIT I COULD GO TO THE HUFFINGTON POST OR THE NEW YORK TIMES WEBSITE. WHY DON'T YOU START A POLITICAL BLOG OR REMAIN SILENT ON POLITICAL ISSUES?
Gothamist should stop publishing this bullshit - it's not relevant and you are offending part of your audience.
I fully intend to write to your advertisers to complain about the partisan content on this blog and the unregulated hateful comments that persist depite frequent complaints as reasons to explain why I will no longer frequent it.
#36, shut up.