The Confederate Yankee, Monday:

s there any way for us to know just how much The New York Times charged for their full page “General Betray Us” advertisement today? Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?


If Tapper’s numbers are correct, paid just 38.89% of a full-cost, nationwide ad, or a 61.11% discount off of a full-rate ad. While I’m fairly certain that nobody pays “sticker” prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal.

I don’t know, intrepid sleuth. Why not call the NY Times advertising department and ask?

Oh, wait. Someone did, and you didn’t believe the the NY Times, and on Wednesday, had this to say:

ABC’s Jake Tapper, who first reported what paid for their ad, is on the story again today and reveals that a conservative organization who ran a full page ad the next day paid “significantly more.”


It appears that the NY Times may take a much bigger hit to their the credibilty and the bottom line than they ever anticipated as a result.

I doubt stockholders will be pleased.

Of course, those investigative juices never got a flowing and you never inquired to know why the conservative group paid more (like, for example, their ad was in color, set to run on a specific day, etc.- not to mention these are Bush’s rich buddies and not too worked up about cash). Finally, after a week of pretending the NY Times did something wrong, you concede defeat (in your own special way, of course):

In other words, all the attention came as a result of the New York Times not putting their standby pricing on their rate cards, and the majority of the angry pixels expended in this incident were more than likely “much ado about nothing.”

Ahh, yes. It is the NY Times fault. You see, they failed to make all their ad prices clear to people who:

A.) never intend to spend a penny advertising with them
B.) hate them
C.) refuse to believe them when they call and ask their ad rates
D.) don’t even read their paper unless they think they can find some bias to wail about.

That, my friends, is how the right-wing blogosphere “investigates.” Create a charge, accuse someone of something, trumpet it wildly, get a bunch of mouthbreathers in a furor, and then, when it is obvious to everyone you have no proof, blame the person you accused.

Fun stuff. Never retreat, never surrender.

*** Update ***

I should probably add that my absolute favorite thing about this affair so far is that even when conceding defeat, the CY links to Dan Riehl, who has this to say:

But I would add an additional point, or two. Being the topic of the news agenda is a far different thing than setting said agenda. And if it weren’t for New Media, particularly blogs in this case, this particular agenda item would likely have never even been set. Duh!

Just so we are clear, if I call Dan Riehl a stupid motherfucker or accuse him of some trumped up bullshit, I am not insulting him or falsely accusing him, I am AGENDA SETTING!. Welcome to Wingnuttia.

*** Update ***

Even funnier, Owens is now deleting comments of those who point out his folly, and leaving the fawning ones praising him for his “good work.” A profile in courage and honesty.

Shorter K-LO

“I don’t understand a lot of shit, so clearly the NY Times is up to no good.

PS. Mitt is teh DREAMY!

Forrest Dumbass

Uncle Jimbo, still stupid as hell. You can almost see the shit-eating grin on his face as he wrote the post.

The new “Conservative”/Republican/War Party Credo:

“I hate big government, unless it is prosecuting speech I do not like.”

How The Fluffersphere Works

How things get ‘proven’ in Greater Wingnuttia:

1.) Wingnut #1 asserts that the NY Times gave MoveOn a super-sweet deal on the ad because they hate America, and not out of general business practices.
2.) Wingnut #2 repeats the claim, links to wingnut #1, and goes on a rant about the perfidy of the NY Times, to include a link to the NY Times stock performance in 2006.
3.) Wingnut #3 links to wingnut #2, and states:

Having done its best for the past four years to undermine the war effort, disrupt national security, aid and abet our enemies, and provide comfort to terrorists, the New York Times has now gone one step further in its efforts to undermine the war.

Newsbusters is reporting that was given a discount from the New York Times for its anti-Petraeus advertisement. Mind you, it received the political advertising discount that every political advertiser gets, but received an additional $102,000.00 discount.

Verdict: PROOF the NY Times hates America. No one, of course, has examined NY Times past rates, no one has asked the NY Times for their input. Doesn’t matter- we have three links! IT IS FACT.

FYI- Pariser of MoveOn stated, on Hardball, that the ad cost “about 70k.” Tapper reports it was approximately 65k. Now I don’t know about you, but 65k is not “about 70k” in my book. I smell a CONspiracy. Someone better get to the bottom of this, because that 5k discrepancy is important. I am guessing the NY Times overcharged them, and then spent the five thousand off the books on hair dye for Osama’s beard so he looked good in his latest video. Or maybe they funded some underage abortions. Who knows? With the NY Times, anything is possible!

*** Update ***

And now Rush Limbaugh and the NY Post are in the act. Any truth to the matter- well, we still don’t know, no one has actually investigated, but repeat something often enough and it is fact! Add fact-free McQ to the mix.

Is one person going to actually investigate this- like, for example, ask about NY Times normal business practices? Sniff around and find out what other people actually pay, rather than the list price? Maybe ask Ari Fleischer or his group what they paid? or is it just FACT because enough droolers repeated it?

Here We Go Again

That deep-thinker Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard thinks he has the Leftards foiled again:

But the key point for these folks prior to the hearings was that Petraeus was merely a White House stooge, a politicized general spewing the administration’s talking points. Now that he shows up and behaves exactly as a general should–no opinion on the policy, serious analysis of tactics and strategy–they act as though Petraeus has admitted he doesn’t believe in this war.

You can’t have it both ways. Which is exactly what Fred Kagan explained over the weekend at NRO–commanders in the field have one job: win the war. Their job is not to question the policy and its broader implications, just to win the war.

And how would these folks respond if Petraeus had given some impassioned speech about how Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, etc. etc.? Instead he acts like a professional, and responds to the question from Warner:

“I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”

The left should be lauding him for this–he diplomatically extricated himself from a question that would have required him to sell the policy of war in Iraq. He balks, and he gets attacked anyway–now he’s not a true believer. Petraeus responded to this question exactly as he should have.

ProTip: If you are four+ years into a war, and it is, at that point, STILL a legitimate question for a Senator to ask whether the war makes us safer, and if you have to ask in the first place, AND THE TOP GENERAL RUNNING THE WAR CAN NOT IMMEDIATELY SAY YES, you have a problem.

Bonus fun: the title of the post by Goldfarb is “Petraeus Shouldn’t Know if Iraq Makes Us Safer.”

Screw it. On to Iran, amirite?