Heyo, Mike:

Well then you will forgive me for not putting any trust into the authority of your prediction.

Absolutely. Frankly, you would be a fool to buy a pig in a poke.

But if you happen to find something there one day, do let me know.

You betcha. Whether it enhances or degrades my hypothesis, I'll cheerfully bring information to light. Be remiss not to.

Once again, I'm not going to run with a single-sourced story no matter how much confidence I have in him (yes, it's a guy). If I can box it up and gift-wrap it, I will. If I'm wrong, (it has been known to happen) I'll be happy to admit it. I would very much like to be wrong on this. Unfortunately, I don't think that I am.

Per ad sales process: I am confident, and no I don't care to.

Well then you will forgive me for not putting any trust into the authority of your prediction.

One need not look further than Hoyt's semi culpa to have evidence of supervisory level scrutiny. Why the hell should I burn someone when the investigators will do it for me?

Damage control doesn't mean conspiracy, this was bad publicity for the Times, so of course they're going to try and stem the flow _before_ an investigation is required, regardless of whether the investigation would have hurt them or exonerated them.

Make no mistake, this is a burr under a saddle, or a bit of grit in an oyster that will eventually run on page A15 under Crazy Eddie's latest promo.

Again, since I have no confidence in your predictive powers, I won't be bothering to check page A15 every day. But if you happen to find something there one day, do let me know.

Per ad sales process: I am confident, and no I don't care to. One need not look further than Hoyt's semi culpa to have evidence of supervisory level scrutiny. Why the hell should I burn someone when the investigators will do it for me? Make no mistake, this is a burr under a saddle, or a bit of grit in an oyster that will eventually run on page A15 under Crazy Eddie's latest promo. Being single-sourced on it is not the way I'd like to go, but confidence is high.

Hope that answers your throw-away line.

This one went up the food chain, and some good reporter will undoubtedly find out the rest in eight to twelve months.

And you will undoubtedly come back and admit that you were wrong if that doesn't happen, right?

You seem to be very confident with your insight into the workings of the NY Times' ad sales process, care to tell us what you know that may not be public knowledge?

Do you really believe that this ad only went through one lowly salesperson? No way in infinite pits of hellfire. It's a cute enough conceit, but this puppy got some supervisory or management level blessing before it went through. We're not talking about an ad-sale at some podunk rag, but a specifically targeted political salvo in the "Paper of Record." To quote Lantos, "I'm not buying it."

It may not have been a mistake, but it's easy to believe that it was done at the sole discretion of the sales person.

No, Nae, Never. Way above an ad-man's pay grade, less'n he wanted to get canned from what is still (though I hate to admit it) one of the world's most prestigious news organizations. This one went up the food chain, and some good reporter will undoubtedly find out the rest in eight to twelve months.

Then it will be printed in twenty-four months.

Given the number who believe that Petraeus's report was overly optimistic and tailored to support the President's policies, plus the _increase_ in support for troop reduction or withdrawal since the ad ran, I would have to say it is better for those seeking to end the war, which is of course MoveOn.org's position as well.

Oh, and the Rasmussen poll only counts how many people disapprove of the ad, not how many disagree with the ad.

This isn't all that hard. By what kind of a margin were the last couple of presidential elections won? Given that trend can you think of any reason for a nearly 50/50 split?

Givcen the number who disagree with it's content, AND with it's being placed, I must ask: Better for WHOM?

Given the number who believe that Petraeus's report was overly optimistic and tailored to support the President's policies, plus the _increase_ in support for troop reduction or withdrawal since the ad ran, I would have to say it is better for those seeking to end the war, which is of course MoveOn.org's position as well.

Oh yes, by all means continue to criticize the ad. Every time someone mentions "General Betray us", MoveOn gets their message broadcast for free, and keeps the topic fresh in the public mind. That's better than a discount from the NY Times.

Givcen the number who disagree with it's content, AND with it's being placed, I must ask: Better for WHOM?

And Triumph has a point: even if one detests the ad, it is impossible to argue that it is important enough to warrant all the time that has been spent on it

In truth, Stephen, I don't think they're spending that much time on the ad on its own merits, but rather because it is emblematic for the attitudes the left has been taking, of late.

the excuses offered , in a way, are emblematic as well.

The one-time mistake by a lowly ad-worker explanation rings a touch hollow

Lowly sales staff go for the easy sale, not the most lucrative. If the guy knew he could sell a standby ad, and knew that it would make it in on the day requested, why would he jeopardize the sale by pushing for the higher price? This way it's a done deal and he gets his commission, and he can move on to the next sale. It's more profitable for him, if not the NY Times.

It may not have been a mistake, but it's easy to believe that it was done at the sole discretion of the sales person.

Still, to the extent that MoveOn.org is legitimated by mainstream Democratic leaders, it's certainly fair to criticize it and to try to score points.

Oh yes, by all means continue to criticize the ad. Every time someone mentions "General Betray us", MoveOn gets their message broadcast for free, and keeps the topic fresh in the public mind. That's better than a discount from the NY Times.

It is the same thing I was criticizing James for doing over the DKos diary, even if you disagree with what is being said, repeating what is being said (even to criticize it) gives that point of view free airtime and added legitimacy as a topic of debate.

This particular ad caused enough of a backlash that a rather substantial discount was noted. How long has this discount been in place? Why is MoveOn putting out press releases noting it will now pay the full rate? Public editor Hoyt did note that MoveOn was familiar with the price given; was that for stand-by ads, or will MoveOn pay the going rate for those as well? If this were a standing rate for MoveOn, are other advocacy groups who paid the full freight entitled to a refund?

While it is true that Rudy got to pop in an add at the discount rate, that was after it had become the subject of probing. The one-time mistake by a lowly ad-worker explanation rings a touch hollow, but MoveOn's secondary payment (and call for Rudy to pay the same amount) just beg for more investigation.

I've got a feeling that Pinch is going to have to break out the stuffed moose again.

it is impossible to argue that it is important enough to warrant all the time that has been spent on it.

I largely agree on the "cheap political points" angle. Still, to the extent that MoveOn.org is legitimated by mainstream Democratic leaders, it's certainly fair to criticize it and to try to score points. After all, every nutty utterance of the Pat Robertsons and James Dobsons and (the late) Jerry Fallwells gets seized upon in a similar fashion.

And I'm not sure this has gotten any more attention than, say, the NRA "jackbooted thugs" ad or the laughable "RATS" controversy some time back.