Moveon.org's NY Times ad. . .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Sep 12 2007, 07:03 PM) [snapback]511606[/snapback]</div>

I'd have to agree. It seems way too much like the methods used by the 'Swift Boats for Truth' group which successfully impugned John Kerry's military service and was in large measure responsible for Bush retaining the presidency in 2004.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Sep 12 2007, 07:03 PM) [snapback]511606[/snapback]</div>

I'd have to agree. It seems way too much like the methods used by the 'Swift Boats for Truth' group which successfully impugned John Kerry's military service and was in large measure responsible for Bush retaining the presidency in 2004.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 12 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]511458[/snapback]</div>

Actually to get to the rank of General in the Army you can not be a yes man. You have to produce results and LEAD soldiers without making major mistakes. The then MG Petraus during OIF I and II was the commander of 101st in the Mosul AO (Area of Operations). He challanged to conventional mindset and thought outside the box when working with local Iraqi's and rewarding local councels with fund for projects. He even had a soccer ball program for the young kids. Of all the commanders in Iraq he understood how to fight a counter insurgency. He used this knowledge to rewrite FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf). The reason he is now in charge of ground forces is what he did worked in Mosul and now they want to use those tactics in the rest of Iraq.

Basicly being a 'yes man' will only get you to maybe Major or LT COL but a General has to get results in their leadership.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 12 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]511458[/snapback]</div>

Actually to get to the rank of General in the Army you can not be a yes man. You have to produce results and LEAD soldiers without making major mistakes. The then MG Petraus during OIF I and II was the commander of 101st in the Mosul AO (Area of Operations). He challanged to conventional mindset and thought outside the box when working with local Iraqi's and rewarding local councels with fund for projects. He even had a soccer ball program for the young kids. Of all the commanders in Iraq he understood how to fight a counter insurgency. He used this knowledge to rewrite FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf). The reason he is now in charge of ground forces is what he did worked in Mosul and now they want to use those tactics in the rest of Iraq.

Basicly being a 'yes man' will only get you to maybe Major or LT COL but a General has to get results in their leadership.

 

I agree with that assessment. He may be a partisan pick but he does not appear to be a hack or title hound. Then again YMMV !

 

I agree with that assessment. He may be a partisan pick but he does not appear to be a hack or title hound. Then again YMMV !

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 12 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]511557[/snapback]</div>

I found that very disappointing. It is one thing to discount space for some charity, like kids with cancer, but discounting a political ad like that is definitely showing bias.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 12 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]511557[/snapback]</div>

I found that very disappointing. It is one thing to discount space for some charity, like kids with cancer, but discounting a political ad like that is definitely showing bias.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Sep 13 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]512036[/snapback]</div>

There shouldn't be any disappointment over the Times action here. It just reinforces their role as a Democratic mouthpiece. They haven't been objective in years, and now they don't even try to pretend to be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spoid @ Sep 13 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]512036[/snapback]</div>

There shouldn't be any disappointment over the Times action here. It just reinforces their role as a Democratic mouthpiece. They haven't been objective in years, and now they don't even try to pretend to be.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 13 2007, 02:20 PM) [snapback]512047[/snapback]</div>

But then again, neither has any other mainstream media outlet. They all lean one way or the other... It just goes to show that you can't trust them for unbiased information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Sep 13 2007, 02:20 PM) [snapback]512047[/snapback]</div>

But then again, neither has any other mainstream media outlet. They all lean one way or the other... It just goes to show that you can't trust them for unbiased information.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 12 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]511557[/snapback]</div>

Not quite the complete story:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 12 2007, 02:22 PM) [snapback]511557[/snapback]</div>

Not quite the complete story:

 

IsrAmeriPrius;

The NY Times spokes-hole Catherine Mathis "says" that the Times doesn't base rates on content but then only offers as an explanation that different rates can be based on bulk purchases or stand-by! So either MoveOn.Org buys a heck of a lot of NY Timer space or we are to believe that the NY Times just had a FULL page open on stand-by, then she didn't explain squat.

In fact confirming that the open rate for advertising a full page add is $181,000.00 makes it even worse! Now MoveOn.org got a $116,000.00 discount!!! Why? Bulk buys or stand-by, not likely.

Of course, the NY Times claims to have published opinions counter to their editorial pages, but that's not the point, the point is I et the opposing viewpoints paid full boogey for the space! Remember, the problem isn't really that they published the MoveOn.org tripe, it’s that the group received a 64% discount for the space!

This may actually require a Congressional inquiry since if the NY Times has different rates for different advertisers, and some of those advertisers are political in nature, it is possible that the rate structure is a violation of campaign finance regulations. As we don't know the categories or rate structure, it is possible, regardless of the spokes-holes statements that they don't base rates on content. Let's put her under oath so we can get the truth. ;-)

 

IsrAmeriPrius;

The NY Times spokes-hole Catherine Mathis "says" that the Times doesn't base rates on content but then only offers as an explanation that different rates can be based on bulk purchases or stand-by! So either MoveOn.Org buys a heck of a lot of NY Timer space or we are to believe that the NY Times just had a FULL page open on stand-by, then she didn't explain squat.

In fact confirming that the open rate for advertising a full page add is $181,000.00 makes it even worse! Now MoveOn.org got a $116,000.00 discount!!! Why? Bulk buys or stand-by, not likely.

Of course, the NY Times claims to have published opinions counter to their editorial pages, but that's not the point, the point is I et the opposing viewpoints paid full boogey for the space! Remember, the problem isn't really that they published the MoveOn.org tripe, it’s that the group received a 64% discount for the space!

This may actually require a Congressional inquiry since if the NY Times has different rates for different advertisers, and some of those advertisers are political in nature, it is possible that the rate structure is a violation of campaign finance regulations. As we don't know the categories or rate structure, it is possible, regardless of the spokes-holes statements that they don't base rates on content. Let's put her under oath so we can get the truth. ;-)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Sep 13 2007, 05:57 PM) [snapback]512244[/snapback]</div>

It is not that different than airfares. Hardly anyone pays the full rate and just about every passenger on any flight pays some sort of a discounted fare, some are more discounted than others.

It is quite common for space and time for print and broadcast political ads to be sold at substantial discounts.

This idea smacks of a First Amendment violation at worst and neo-McCarthyism at best.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 11 2007, 11:46 PM) [snapback]511095[/snapback]</div>

MoveOn is good for republicans...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ith_the_ou.html

 

This outrage about the term "Betray Us " is simply a smokescreen tactic used to direct peoples attention away from the message.I wonder how many rightwingers read any of the links on the moveon site.Arent you right wingers sick of being lied to?
The fact is that everything ever stated about Iraq from the Bush administration, has been lies.
WMDs ,"The reconstruction will be financed with Iraqi oil money"."The war will last a few weeks or months"
Now Bush is pushing the lie that we are fighting AlQueda in Iraq.Knowing damn well that AQI are not THE Alqueda who attacked the WTC.
Bush and his cohort's lies betrayed the American people.
Colin Powell betrayed the world when he presented lies of WMDs to the UN.
If Petraus is reporting to Congress with cherry picked cooked statistics then he also has betrayed the trust of the American people.

As to the timing of the ad ,Moveon obviously knew exactly how Petraus would report so why wait until after.

 

Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times:

I could not have said it better.