Might be a Reason to Vote for McCain

Parent Cafe
121

<p>sjmom, from what I understand, the Times normal rate for an advocacy ad from a non-profit group IS $65,000, not $182,000. I heard a Times rep being interviewed this morning and confirming that.</p>

122

<p>“sjmom, from what I understand, the Times normal rate for an advocacy ad from a non-profit group IS $65,000, not $182,000. I heard a Times rep being interviewed this morning and confirming that.”</p>

<p>That’s right. And in the interest of being fair and balanced, shouldn’t the Times offer equal time to advocates of the other side?</p>

123

<p>Have they refused to do so? I would imagine that if there is a non-profit group which submits an advocacy ad that they should be entitled to the same rate. My point was that all the hullabaloo being discussed and quoted here neglected to mention that the rate given to moveon was the normal rate.</p>

124

<p>“Have they refused to do so? I would imagine that if there is a non-profit group which submits an advocacy ad that they should be entitled to the same rate. My point was that all the hullabaloo being discussed and quoted here neglected to mention that the rate given to moveon was the normal rate.”</p>

<p>INitially, they did refuse. But now the ad has been accepted. The Moveon rate was the normal rate for advocacy groups of the NY Times choosing, that’s very different from the normal, “normal rate.” The rate is irrelevant as long as the Times can pick and choose upon whom to bestow it.</p>

125

<p>Whose ad did they refuse? I’m curious what advocacy group from the Republican side was refused this rate.</p>

126

<p>“Whose ad did they refuse? I’m curious what advocacy group from the Republican side was refused this rate.”</p>

<p>They initially refused this one. But we’ll never know who else because this is really unprecedented, which is the point.</p>

127

<p>Ah, okay, I see what you’re saying. The moveon ad was the first such non-profit political advocacy ad accepted? I can’t see the problem unless a similar non-advocacy group which represents the Republicans is refused a similar opportunity for an ad. I admit that I’m not familiar with what, if any, rules the print media is bound by when it comes to political ads, and equal access issues. Anyone know?</p>

128

<p>Bz – In my view, Obama would make an outstanding VP which would give him the foreign policy experience (esp. if he were an active VP not just a funeral attendee) which he lacks. What I’d love is an Edwards/Obama ticket. That would be my Dream Team and would, I think, win it walking away. I am no Hilllary afficianado – I just don’t care for her style and never have. What I <em>expect</em> to see is Clinton/and somebody not at present on the radar. Feingold? Fitzgerald? (okay, I’m teasing.) </p>

<p>Regrettably, I think the McCain ship has sailed. If he’d beaten Bush in 2000, that would have been probably a good thing (heck…if <em>anybody</em> had…sigh) but McCain’s POV on the war, on immigration, his closeness to Bush will make his nomination impossible. Eight years on, the workers and support just aren’t there. Neither is the money. His campaign is struggling for donors. If you like him, send him a check. You might get an autographed thank you note back. </p>

<p>As for Thompson, sorry, Zoosermom, but even George Will and Robert Novak (not exactly liberal stooges) have given his entrance into the race a big ‘yawn.’ They don’t find his platitudes and vagueness compelling and his audiences seem to be agreeing. He needed to come out strong and command headlines. This is not the Second Coming of St. Ronnie. In a recent interview, Thompson couldn’t recall the details of the Terri Schiavo case and was a little too foggy on the details of any of the legislation he helped to pass while in the Senate. We don’t need another delegator/CEO in the White House but someone who is as fascinated by the details of government as Big Dog Bill C. who, whatever you think of him, must be acknowledged as a first class policy wonk.</p>

129

<p>George Will’s piece in the Wash Post was the most brutal hatchet job I’ve ever seen done on a candidate:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/is_a_fred_thompson_campaign_ne.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/is_a_fred_thompson_campaign_ne.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>But keep in mind that George Will and Novak are anachronistic country-club Republicans. They are hopelessly out of touch with mainstream evangelical neocon 21st century Republicans.</p>

130

<p>“As for Thompson, sorry, Zoosermom, but even George Will and Robert Novak (not exactly liberal stooges) have given his entrance into the race a big ‘yawn.’”</p>

<p>Huh? I never said a nything about Thompson. Actually, I was going to post that I KNOW nothing about Thompson. Perhaps this was meant for someone else?</p>

131

<p>"I can’t see the problem unless a similar non-advocacy group which represents the Republicans is refused a similar opportunity for an ad. "</p>

<p>The Swift Boat Veterans and the National Right to Life Committee were both denied by the Times. Both were medium-sized kerfluffles. I would consider them to be advocacy groups.</p>

132

<p>They may be advocacy groups but they may not fit the definition of an official non-profit organization. I don’t know. This is one issue, but I think the larger issue is, as I mentioned in my last post, what are the rules/laws/regulations that the print media is governed by when it comes to equal access. If there are such rules, do they apply to advertising? Do newspapers have the right to accept or decline an ad, as they see fit? To charge what they wish for advertising? I think it’s an interesting topic.</p>

133

<p>

</p>

<p>McCaiin has revisited the immigration issue. Does not advocate amnesty.</p>

<p>Perhaps as the situation continues to develop, he would be similarly willing to be flexible about his position on Iraq. I guess politicians are sometimes reluctant to change positions for fear of being branded a “flip-flopper”. But as we all know, circumstances change & sometimes we have to adjust. I see it as a good sign that McCain is open to adaptation as needed.</p>

<p>Be sure to check out his positions on all the issues:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/[/url]”>http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

134

<p>“I see it as a good sign that McCain is open to adaptation as needed.”</p>

<p>McCain’s words and record on immigration are long and well-documented. He has not changed his position, he has just changed what and how he articulates so that he can be electable. There’s not question of where he stands and what policies he would advocate as President. He is a good man who will not be president.</p>

135

<p>

According to page 5 of the NY times rate book, a full page, nationwide weekday ad for an “Advocacy/Cause and Appeal/Political or Philanthropy” ad is $167,157.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/mediakit/docs/rate_card/Newspaper/International.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/mediakit/docs/rate_card/Newspaper/International.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It should be clear to everone that MoveOn was given a preferential rate.</p>

136

<p>sjmom, so I guess that the Times spokeswoman is a liar then? I don’t think it’s clear at all that they were given a preferential rate, given what their spokeswoman stated to the media, and even if they were, are there rules against that? In any case, can you answer the questions I asked previously? What are the rules, if any, governing print media as to equal access, or setting their own advertising rates? It seems that this is quite a pointless argument without knowing the answers to that. By the way, is there a reason that the page you linked indicates “International”? Are those rates for the international edition only?</p>

137

<p>Here’s the facts: The Times does have a special rate, as given to Move-on, IF you are willing to let them determine the date that the ad appears - kind of like flying stand-by. Now, the interesting thing is that the Move-on ad specifically mentioned something like “Today General Petreaus will be presenting to Congress”. The phrasing of this ad makes it quite apparent that they had a pre-approved day that it would appear in the Times and the Times gave them the “stand by” rate anyway.</p>

138

<p>Moveon.org is also a political action committee.</p>

139

<p>alwaysamom, I guess I would have to “suspend disbelief” (a la Hillary Clinton to General Petraeus) with regard to the comments by the NY Times spokeswoman. I can only point to their published rates and compare what they put in writing with what she said. </p>

<p>I have also read that the rate is dependent on when an ad is published – they may offer a discount if they run the ad when it’s convenient for them. That would not be surprising – many businesses offer unpublished discounts. The problem is the wording of the ad, as fundingfather points out.</p>

<p>The last line of the ad says:

</p>

<p>The bottom line is that the NY Times got caught with their knickers down, and are now trying to justify the rate without admitting why they gave it.</p>

<p>

<a href=“TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR ‘BETRAY US’ AD”>TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR ‘BETRAY US’ AD;

140

<p>Sorry, zoosermom, I thought you were the one who was the big Thompson fan.</p>