A bipartisan NBC News poll shows that only 36 percent of Americans think “Barack Obama’s health care plan” is a “good idea” even though 51 percent approve of the job he is doing as president.  In the same survey, 43 percent favor “creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies,” which 47 percent oppose.

A new poll, conducted by SurveyUSA for hard left MoveOn.org, finds that 77% believe it extremely important (58%) or quite important (19%) that “any health care proposal” passed “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”

Disclosure:  My wife is Chief Operating Officer for Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted the poll along with Hart Research Associates.  I have not discussed this poll with Bill McInturff or anyone on his staff and only discussed it with my wife to determine whether POS had issued any statement on this controversy; they have not.

HuffPo’s Sam Stein correctly notes that the key word here is “choice.”

While arguments about what type of language best describe the public option persist –”choice” is considered a trigger word that everyone naturally supports — it seems clear that the framing of the provision goes a long way toward determining its popularity.

Question wording is one of the factors that clearly matter in these things.  Previous iterations of the NBC/WSJ poll included the word “choice” but pollsters Hart and McInturff decided two cycles ago to drop the word, resulting in a rather steep drop in support.  Recall, though, that Peter Hart is a very prominent Democratic pollster and the two have teamed up for the survey precisely for the purpose of ensuring that the surveys weren’t tilted to favor on side’s views over the other.

It strikes me that “choice” here is loaded and likely to skew the results.  The new wording describes exactly what the policy change would be:  ”creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies.”  The public plan run by the government is what’s new.  Further, it competes with private insurance.  So, the choice is prominently mentioned without using the word “choice.”

Conversely, “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance” is essentially a double barreled question, a classic error in polling.  Why?  Because one could quite reasonably both vehemently oppose a public plan and yet think it important to have the choice of keeping their existing plan were a government plan to emerge. Many opponents of the public option, then, might give an affirmative answer to the question on that basis.

Mark Tapcott hath a point:

[I]n a Beltway Confidential post Tuesday, I asked what is the difference between folks on the Right calling the eight Republican House members who voted for Obama-Waxman-Markey the “cap-and-traitors,” and the infamous “General Betrayus” ad bought by the Left’s Moveon.org in The New York Times.

In no time at all, comments variously described your humble servant as a “moron,” a spreader of “piffle,” a “clueless knave or a fool,” and “a boil on journalists’ butts,” among much else. A few folks offered reasonable contrary arguments, but the clear verdict of most was that I am either incredibly stupid, or I’ve ingested an overdose of MSM fairy dust.

[...]

The fundamental problem here is that substituting personal invective for logic and fact points to the disappearance of a key aspect of republican virtue – putting the pursuit of truth in public debate before self-aggrandizement, also known as moderation or temperance.

It also signifies the continuing corruption of public language. Contrary to the deconstructionists among us, language is crucially important in a republic because it enables rational consideration of alternatives. Dismissing a proposal out of hand because it comes from a “moron” denies the possibility of logical argumentation and poisons the reasonable discourse required for a republic to function peacefully.

[...]

Usually with Reagan it was “our opponents,” or “the other side.” He was always a gracious speaker and a superb debater, quick to refute specious arguments or personal attacks with facts and logic. Reagan was tough, but he was a gentleman and an honorable adversary.

Reagan steadfastly avoided using personal opprobrium as a substitute for facts and reason because he refused to demean himself or his cause by diving into the gutter with others who were all too eager to hurl themselves and others there.

It’s not uncommon these days to hear suggestions that Reagan is no longer relevant. But his example of extending courtesy and respect to opponents – including those who don’t deserve it – is relevant for all time because it’s the right thing to do.

Mark’s piece may well overstate the degree to which the right has been more honorable in its debating tactics over the years than the left.  There’s certainly been a long history of coded language implying that the other side is less loyal to the country, less moral, less likely to have good personal hygiene, and so forth.  Then again, maybe having the decency to couch such charges in code words is a mark of civility.

Regardless, Mark’s quite right that respectful debate is both good for the republic and good manners.  I’d like to see more of it.

Photo:  US News

One soldier was killed and another seriously injured in a shooting at an Army-Navy Recruiting Center in west Little Rock, Arkansas.  Thankfully, the second’s injuries are not considered life-threatening.  Contrary to earlier reports, both victims were “just out of basic training,” participating in the “Hometown Recruiting Assistance” program, and not Army Recruiters.  An arrest has been made but no names are released.  An “assault rifle” of some sort was reportedly used in the shootings.

Thus far, blogospheric commentary seems to be relegated to the right.  Not surprisingly, comparisons are being drawn to the murder of abortionist George Tiller despite the fact that “Police are trying to determine a motive” and the police spokesman “did not know whether the recruiting office was specifically targeted or was randomly chosen.”

Michelle Malkin ruefully quips, “I wonder if the Justice Department will send marshals to beef up protection at recruiting centers — especially given the past targeting of military centers on campuses and elsewhere across the country.”  She rounds up some of her own reports from over the years to demonstrate that violence aimed at military recruiters happens with some frequency, even if it gets less attention than abortion clinic violence.

Charles Johnson wisely refrains from speculation, merely passing on a noteworthy story.  Similarly, Ed Morrissey cautions, “This could have any of several different motives: political, personal, insanity.  I’d caution against reading too much into it until we hear more from the police.  We’ll be keeping an eye on it.”

AJ Strata wonders, “Is this country ready to finally deal with the fringe nut cases in the fevered swamps on the left and right?”

Rob Port observes,

Now, not to use this tragedy for politics or anything, but we could jump to the conclusion that this man was motivated by a hatred for the military (or something along those lines) and then blame groups like Code Pink and Media Matters and MoveOn.org for fanning anti-military, anti-Iraq war passions for years.  We could, much as the left has with people like Bill O’Reilly in the George Tiller murder claim that those groups have blood on their hands.

But we won’t.  Because that’s stupid.  This murder, whatever the motivation (it’s not clear at this point), was committed by a murderous thug who acted of his own volition.  Not because he was compelled to by liberal dissent.

Until we know whether the shooter was some yahoo with a beef against military recruiters, a garden variety lunatic, or part of some organized conspiracy, it’s not much worth speculating on the politics.  But Strata and Port are right:  There are fringe elements out there on various points of the political spectrum and some handful of them are willing to kill.

Most murders, though, are apolitical. They’re human tragedies with horrific consequences for friends and loved ones with little public policy meaning.  Sadly, that doesn’t stop people from trying to make political hay out of them.

I fully expect, by the way, some commenters on the left to start exploiting this case to argue for a strengthened assault rifle ban in 5, 4, 3 . . .

Photo:  KATV7

Timothy Sandefur is embarrassed:

So I was watching this insane video of Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie discussing the War on Terrorism with Mos Def. And it’s amusing to laugh at the utterly hapless ignorance of “Mr. Def,” as he is repeatedly called—until you stop and wonder. Why is the black community not outraged by this? Bill Maher hosts a talk show to discuss the threat of Islamic terrorism and the Middle East, and he invites two world-renowned white male intellectuals and Mos Def? If this show had been choreographed by the Ku Klux Klan it could not have been more infuriating. Did Maher not have the phone number of a black intellectual? Were Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Orlando Patterson, Julian Bond, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter all busy?

Here’s the video:

While I agree entirely that this is an absurd pairing, it’s most definitely not a racist one.  Sandefur has apparently never seen “Real Time with Bill Maher.”  The premise of the show, from its inception more than six years ago, has been to pair politicos and pop culture figures in discussion.  (Whether the point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the latter are morons or that their opinions are equally valid, I could never determine.)

Here are the seven season openers.

February 21, 2003. Guests: Author Ann Coulter, actor Larry Miller, writer, radio host and professor Michael Eric Dyson, comedian Sarah Silverman, comedian Chris Rock.  Topics: The UN, Affirmative Action.

January 16, 2004. Guests: Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark, artist Moby, Rev. Al Sharpton, actor Ron Silver, Rep. Darrell Issa. Topics: American values, Iraq, MoveOn.org, environment.

February 18, 2005. Guests: Correspondent Lesley Stahl, actor Robin Williams, former H&HS Sec. Tommy Thompson, Sen. Joe Biden, and actor Don Cheadle. Topics: On protecting sources, Jeff Gannon, on Interrogating prisoners, Iraq elections, Darfur.

February 17, 2006. Guests: Sen. Russ Feingold, commentator Fred Barnes, actor Eddie Griffin, reporter Helen Thomas, Iraq advisor Dan Senor. Topics: Cheney shooting, on the Patriot Act, Bush, Mohammad cartoons.

February 16, 2007. Guests: Fmr Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, fmr Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, TV host Craig Ferguson; via satellite, fmr Sen. John Edwards and basketball player John Amaechi. Topics: Developments in North Korea, Iran, and Iraq; global warming; Mitt Romney and Mormonism; Al Franken Senate campaign.

January 11, 2008. Guests: Entrepreneur Mark Cuban, fmr Court TV anchor Catherine Crier, fmr Bush Press Secy Tony Snow, Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi (election correspondent); via satellite, humorist P.J. O’Rourke. Topics: New Hampshire primary, electronic voting machines, Iraq troop surge, subprime lending and prospects for economic recession.

February 20, 2009. Guests: Financial Times editor Chrystia Freeland, journalist Tina Brown, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA); via satellite, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), journalist Brigitte Gabriel The economy, President Obama’s first month in office.

See the Wikipedia episode guide if you fear the season openers are not representative.

The pairings are, in most if not all cases, patently absurd. They include plenty of famous white guys who would, on the face of things, seem to be woefully out of their elements and plenty of black guys who would seemingly mop of the floor with the competition.

For what it’s worth, Mr. Def was really good in this week’s “House.”

MoveOn has unveiled a new anti-McCain ad titled, simply, “Timeline.”

CNN’s Emily Sherman has a summary. The opener:

In Chicago, in Saint Louis and Seattle, the American people are demanding a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. In Baghdad and Basra and Tikrit, the Iraqi people……and now the Iraqi Prime minister are also demanding a timetable. But John McCain doesn’t want a timetable.

Rather lame, frankly. Like most of McCain’s own spots, it’s a weak ad that tells people what they already know.

At least it’s not the over-the-top nonsense like “General Betray Us” that MoveOn usually goes in for.

I’ve been arguing for quite some time both here and on OTB Radio that Hillary Clinton’s protectionist rhetoric on trade has been 180 degrees from the policy that her husband carried out as president. Now, we have the perfect illustration.

It’s a story Hillary Clinton loves to tell, about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China. And it’s a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but didn’t. If she were president, she says, she’d fight to protect those jobs. It’s just the kind of talk that’s helping her win support form working-class Democrats worried about jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country’s security.

What Clinton never tells in the oft-repeated tale is the role prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company, or that the sale was approved by the administration of her husband.

[...]

In 1995, General Motors decided to sell the Indiana-based Magnequench to a Chinese-American consortium. The consortium included:

* San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co, a company owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
* Onfem Holdings, a company controlled by the State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration in the Peoples Republic of China;
* Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros;
* The Sextant Group, founded by Archibald Cox Jr.;

Soros, of course, is the wealthy investor who has contributed vast sums to Democratic candidates and liberal causes. He’s given more than $250,000 to Democratic campaign committees, tens of thousands to individual Democratic candidates, and about $2.5 million to the liberal group, Moveon.org, according to Federal Election Commission records. He’s also contributed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign, and to Obama’s Senate and presidential campaigns. He contributed to Republican Sen. John McCain’s first presidential campaign, in 1999, when he was running against Bush for the Republican nomination.

Because Magnequench made magnets for smart bombs, the sale to a group including foreign owners required approval under a 1988 law. After a 30-day review, the Clinton administration’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes representatives of the Pentagon, approved the sale in 1995.

In fairness to Hillary, the first Indiana plant wasn’t closed until 2001 and the Bush Administration declined to intervene to stop it. But all the steps along the way took place under Bill’s watch. And, frankly, given his friendliness to China and his ideological commitment to free trade, it’s incredibly unlikely that he would have acted any different than his successor.

Hillary is under no obligation to follow her husband’s policies, of course. But it’s more than a little disingenuous to criticize Bush for carrying out policies that her husband started and claiming that it’s a partisan issue.

via Glenn Reynolds

Rush Limbaugh auctioned off a letter signed by Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and 39 other Senate Democrats condemning his “phony soldiers” comments for $2.1 million on eBay. He’s matching that total and donating $4.2 million to a charity benefiting the families of Marines and police officers wounded in the line of duty.

The media coverage of this is all over the place.

“Limbaugh Sells Critical Letter for $2.1 Million,” (Stephanie Strom, NYT ):

After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as “phony soldiers,” he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators. He decided to auction the letter, which he described as “this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance,” for charity, and he pledged to match the price, dollar for dollar.

“Limbaugh Spins Reid’s Letter Into Charity Gold” (Neely Tucker, WaPo):

Petty bickering about patriotism and Who Loves Our Troops More has never been seen as a financial growth industry, but there’s no stopping American capitalism. This is why a perfunctory bit of political grandstanding, committed to U.S. Senate letterhead this month, became worth a reported $4.2 million yesterday, instantly becoming one of the most valuable printed documents of the modern era.

The letter in question is an Oct. 2 two-pager from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting the syndicate’s Rush Limbaugh, who had recently criticized U.S. troops who were against the war in Iraq.

“Bidding Over $2M for Dems Anti-Rush Letter, ” (Z. Byron Wolf, ABC News Political Radar blog)

Who says the political fingerpointing in Washington is all for naught?

Back in September, when Democrats and Republicans were sniping at each other over the Iraq war, Republicans passed a nonbinding resolution in the Senate condemning Moveon.org for calling David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, “General Betrayus” in a newspaper ad.

For their part, Democrats sent a letter calling for Rush Limbaugh to be reprimanded for calling soldiers who opposed the war “phony soldiers.”

The furor seemed to have died down as the Senate moved away from voting on a string of Iraq resolutions to voting on domestic spending bills.

But today comes word that a Wasghinton, D.C. area philanthropist, Betty Casey (or bettyc588, as she is known on Ebay) is going to pay over $2 million for a letter Senate Democrats wrote to Mark Mays, President of Clear Channel, asking him to condemn Rush Limbaugh for the “phony soldiers” comment.

Interestingly, it’s the last of these that’s gotten the most attention, with Don Surber, Bob Owens, “Gaius,” Warner Todd Huston, and others blasting ABC for seeming to give Reid and the Democrats, rather than Limbaugh, credit for raising the money. While I suppose it could be read that way, the report seems accurate enough, if a bit hyperbolic; then again, it’s a blog, not a straight news report. The NYT coverage, however, is much more objectionable, leading with the Democratic talking point as if it were the unquestioned truth. Limbaugh claims that “he was only referring to one soldier who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army and never seen combat.” That fact is reserved for the 12th paragraph.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid is trying to claim credit for raising the money, despite having thus far putting up not one single dime.

Mr. President, we didn’t have time, or we could have gotten every senator to sign that letter. But he put the letter up for auction on e-bay and I think very, very constructively, left the proceeds of that it go to the Marine Corps law enforcements foundation. That provides scholarship assistance to marines and federal law enforcement personnel whose parents fall in the line of duty. What could be a more worthwhile cause? I think it’s really good that this money on e-bay is going to be raised for this purpose. …

Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature.

It’s a clever spin but Limbaugh has responded by challenging Reid and company to put their money where their mouths are:

Harry Reid in a speech on the Senate floor at 12 noon today, a little over an hour ago, attempted to horn in on all this and take some credit for it, claiming that he and I had buried the hatchet, or implying that that had been the case, and then kept using the pronoun “WE” in discussing how good this was, the money going to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. So the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, it’s now official, is going to get in excess of $4.2 million because I am matching Betty Casey’s bid on eBay — $4.2 million. I asked Senator Reid to match and all the other senators who can afford to do so. I haven’t heard from them on that. I asked Senator Reid to go on the program and discuss his discussion of me as “unpatriotic.” He did not accept my offer to do that, and now has the audacity to climb aboard this, praising the effort, saying that “he” never knew that it would get this kind of money.

It would be a great PR move by the 41 to pool $2.1 million and match Limbaugh’s donation. And, certainly, it’s a worthwhile cause.

Interestingly, though, the NYT piece concludes by questioning that:

Marcus S. Owens, a lawyer who until 2000 headed the division of the Internal Revenue Service that oversees charities and foundations, said the Casey foundation might be liable for taxes because it would have difficulty demonstrating that the purchase of the letter furthered a charitable purpose. “They’d have to establish the link between the transfer of money for that letter and promoting free speech, and that’s going to be tough,” Mr. Owens said.

Now, obviously, Owens knows far, far more about tax law than I do. But, rather clearly, this is a charitable donation to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which is presumably a registered charity, so I’m not sure what the problem is. Perhaps there’s a question of the intrinsic value of the letter?

Media Matters has again successfully embroiled the blogosphere in a controversy with a press release. The latest, entitled “Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are ‘phony soldiers,’” has gained wide circulation on the left. The lede:

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.”

This got even the likes of Steve Benen going. He begins his post, “Limbaugh calls service members who support withdrawal ‘phony soldiers’”,

Rush Limbaugh smeared countless U.S. service members — ranging in rank from private to general — who dare to believe that withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea. As Limbaugh described it, those in uniform who disagree with him are “phony soldiers.”

Matt Yglesias, though, comes within an inch of getting it right:

Rush Limbaugh calls anti-war troops “phony soldiers.” One wonders if he’s literally doubting the existence of such people, and thus proving himself to be an idiot, or metaphorically doubting their authenticity as soldiers, thus proving himself to be morally contemptible. Both are, obviously, plausible end-states for Rush.

If one looks at the transcript, it’s rather clear that it’s the former. Limbaugh is no idiot but one of his favorite rhetorical devices is defining a group in a very narrow way and then claiming anyone who doesn’t fit that definition but nonetheless identifies himself that way is either a liar, a plant, misguided, or the like. Indeed, there are several instances of this in the exchange in question (highlights mine):

RUSH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can’t be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill — (Laughing) or Mike. I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but –

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question; it’s not what you want to hear, and so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn’t say forever. Nothing takes forever. That’s not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything — do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, “Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it’s not, so screw it”? You don’t live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don’t know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.

Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

To Limbaugh — at least Limbaugh the radio persona — if you disagree with his views, you’re not a Republican. If you say you’re a huge fan of his show but you disagree with him on this one issue, you’re a Democratic plant sent in with talking points, posing as a loyal listener to get past the call screener. If you claim to be a veteran or currently in the military and differ with him on military issues, you’re not really a soldier. Similarly, anonymous soldiers quoted in the press criticizing the war are fictitious. Liberal journalists fabricate them to spice up their stories.

He’s an exceedingly bright fellow — you don’t make yourself into a household name, basically invent a new medium, and last two decades doing three hours a day doing radio call-in otherwise — so my guess is this schtick is just an act used to bait the opposition and score points with his loyal listeners. I don’t think he actually believes this nonsense.

Regardless, it’s an infuriating and dishonest stance. Still, it’s not the same as what he’s being accused of here, though: Saying that soldiers who want to leave Iraq are therefore “phony soldiers.”

That said, as Media Matters, Benen, and others document, Limbaugh has a history of throwing around language suggesting that war opponents are un-American, un-patriotic, or worse.

As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as “contemptible” and “indecent” MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement — titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” — critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: “Senator Betrayus.” A day earlier, Hagel had sided
with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush's escalation in Iraq was against “the national
interest.” Additionally, on August 21, 2006, Limbaugh said: “I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to
lose.”

As Media Matters has also documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as “another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform” and accused him of going to Iraq “to pad the resumé.” On the day of Limbaugh's comments, Hackett narrowly lost a special election to Republican Jean Schmidt for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat.

This tactic is deplorable, if effective. It’s not solely a tactic of the Right, however: our debates on everything from abortion to affirmative action to welfare reform to Social Security is tinged with hateful language designed to put opponents on the defensive rather than focus on the merits of the policies under discussion.

There, is, however a not unimportant distinction in the Petraeus ad and Limbaugh’s outrageous attacks on Kerry, Hackett, and Hagel: The latter are/were politicians engaged in partisan contests to win political office while the former is a serving military officer constrained by his office from fighting back in kind.

Once one has taken off the uniform and entered the political fray, the gloves come off. Being a war hero doesn’t and shouldn’t give one a free pass in the political arena — although those who haven’t served should tread carefully, lest the attacks backfire. The attacks on the patriotism and military service of the likes of John Murtha, Max Cleland, Kerry, and Hagel are despicable; no more so, though, than other smear tactics (push polling, gay baiting, the race card) that have become routine in our campaigns.

The House of Representatives has joined the Senate in condemning the infamous “General Betray Us” attack ad.

The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to condemn the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org for a recent advertisement attacking the top U.S. general in Iraq.

By a 341-79 vote, the House passed a resolution praising the patriotism Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

The liberal group’s full-page ad appeared earlier this month in The New York Times and has served as a rallying point for Republicans. President Bush called the ad “disgusting” and criticized Democrats such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the party’s nomination, for being afraid of irritating the group.

Actually, there’s an interesting bit of parliamentary shenanigans going on here. This condemnation of the ad was actually entered as an amendment to a much larger piece of legislation aimed at “stopgap” funding on ongoing appropriations.

Still, I find it bizarre that both houses of Congress felt the need to actually vote to condemn a political ad in a newspaper. Don’t Congresspersons have better things to do with their time?

Americans across the political spectrum disapproved of the “Betray Us” ad, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

Twenty-three percent (23%) of Americans approve of an ad run in the New York Times “that referred to General Petraeus as General Betray Us.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% disapproved. Those figures include 12% who Strongly Approve and 42% who Strongly Disapprove.

Self-identified liberals were evenly divided—45% approve and 39% disapprove. However, only 19% of moderate voters approve while 62% disapprove.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of all adults say that “stunts like the MoveOn.org ad” hurt the cause they believe in. Only 12% believe they help the cause while 17% say there is no impact. Twenty-four percent (24%) are not sure. Again, political liberals are divided with 27% saying they help and 32% taking the opposite view. Fifty percent (50%) of moderates and 57% of conservatives say that these sorts of events hurt the cause the group is trying to promote.

It’s surprising, frankly, that the approval was as high as it was given the ridiculously poisoned question framing. “Stunts like the MoveOn.org ad”?

Of course, the popularity of an ad doesn’t necessarily mean much. After all, the rationale for running an advocacy ad is to get attention — which MoveOn got in spades — and to raise awareness for a position that is presumably not already the prevailing view. The more interesting (but harder to answer) question is how much the discussion generated by the ad moved public opinion and in what direction.

Polls consistently show that people hate negative advertising and attacks used as part of the political process. Almost everyone wants the debate to be more civil. Yet there’s no doubt that these tactics are very effective. That’s why they continue to be used.

New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt thinks “the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.”

Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.

[...]

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.” Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days.

Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.” She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.”

[...]

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran.

[...]

In the fallout from the ad, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday’s Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it — and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid.

Bradley A. Blakeman, former deputy assistant to President Bush for appointments and scheduling and the head of FreedomsWatch.org, said his group wanted to run its own reply ad last Monday and was quoted the $64,575 rate on a standby basis. The ad wasn’t placed, he said, because the newspaper wouldn’t guarantee him the day or a position in the first section. Sulzberger said all advocacy ads normally run in the first section.

Mathis said that since the controversy began, the newspaper’s advertising staff has been told it must adhere consistently to its pricing policies.

Pariser stresses that his organization did not ask for or think it was getting special treatment but “while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times” and calls on Giuliani to do the same.

Regular OTB commenter yetanotherjohn mentioned this in a comment yesterday and emailed me separately. There has since been much discussion of this controversy in the blogosphere, mostly charging that this proves that the NYT is a commie liberal rag that doesn’t love America.

While I’m not a fan of Sulzberger and company’s politics, and certainly not of the ad in question, there still seems to be little beef to this one. The Times is a large business and it strikes me as unlikely that the senior management is involved in routine ad sales. For that matter, MoveOn is backed by gazillionaire George Soros and can easily pay the going rate for ads and my strong guess is that the Times is not in the business of turning down money.

From the facts presented thus far, it would seem that an ad guy called on Friday about an ad to be run on Monday was happy to fill unsold space and saw that there were some pages available for the desired placement. He quoted the standby rate, figuring there was little chance that the rest of the space would suddenly get sold out in the next couple of hours and neglected to mention the caveat that, at that rate, he couldn’t technically guarantee that the ad would run Monday.

Unless evidence comes out that there is a standing policy at the NYT to quote the standby rate to groups with certain agendas and the full rate for others, or that senior management intervened in this particular case, there doesn’t seem to be much to this.

Apparently, those of us who thought MoveOn.org has gone too far in suggesting that General Petraeus would “Betray Us” were simply not clued in on how easily the word “betray” is bandied about by the Left.

Matt Stoler has written a vehement post entitled, “Obama Betrays Us, Of Course” that refers to the top challenger for the Democratic nomination as a “sad spectacle of a politician” and “a putz.” His offense? Failing to cancel campaign appearances to vote against a Senate resolution condemning said MoveOn ad.

Sigh.

The Whole Ass Edition OTB Caption Contest^TM is now over.

(AP Photo/The Daily Journal, Jeffrey Hage)

The Winners:

First: Steven L. – Voice of MoveOn.org from above: “It votes against the army plan, or it gets the hose again. . . .”

Second: charles austin – Apocalypzoo

Third: Steven Taylor – If you think this is bad, you should see the elephant.

Honorable Mention:

Bithead – The Democrats after the election

Deathlok – Kerry: “He didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.”

elliot – Well, well, well. Just what the world needs another a**hole.

yetanotherjohn – What progress in Iraq? I don’t see any progress from where I’m sitting.

Maniakes – I can has exit strategy?

Su Berton – This is what happens when a donkey talks too much.

Rodney’s Bottom of The Barrel

Sally Field at the Emmy’s

Even though they both belonged to him, Teddy Kennedy couldn’t tell one from the other.

Maybe he’d be more fierce with a frickin’ laser mounted on his head.

Does this hole make my Ass look fat.

“Why the long face Senator Kerry?”

Bill Clinton: “No its not Hillary’s, no way she could fit her ass down that small a hole.”

“OK Shrek, I’m ready to shut up now.”

The Thursday Contest is already screaming for ‘SERENITY NOW.’

Via Jeff Jarvis, I see that the NYT has explained why MoveOn’s infamous “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad got such a big discount over the regular rates:

Within the category of political or advocacy advertising it is common practice throughout the newspaper industry to offer a standby rate in addition to open rate advertising. When a group buys a standby ad, it can request a particular date for it to be run, but receives no guarantee that it can appear that day. The lower cost of such ads reflects the flexibility that gives us. Any political or advocacy group calling up today to request a standby ad would be quoted the same rate that MoveOn.org paid.

That’s reasonable enough, in that it allows the paper the opportunity to try to hawk the space at the standard rate while ensuring that they have ads to fill all the alloted space. It is, however, a mite curious that MoveOn managed to get their “standby” ad in on precisely the most advantageous day for it to appear: The day the Petraeus testimony began.

The New York Times gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad Monday questioning General David Petraeus’ integrity, Charles Hurt reports in the rival New York Post.

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.”

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad – a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

This is creating quite a hubbub in the blogosphere but I’m inclined to wait for more information before buying into conspiracy theories. It may well be that, as Dale Franks contends (in the comments of his co-blogger Bruce McQuain’s post) “nobody pays the full rate for advertising anyway, except for the hayseeds who don’t know any better.” If so, then the “open rate” could well be meaningless.

UPDATE: ABC’s Jake Tapper reports,

New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis tells me that it’s Times policy to not “disclose the rate that any one advertiser pays for an ad. The rate that is charged for an ad will depend on a variety of factors including how frequently the advertiser advertises with us, the day of the week, is it color, is it black and white, what section it appears, all of those kinds of things.”

Mathis says the newspaper tries “to keep our advertising columns as open as possible” and “there are many instances when we’ve published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance that we take on our own editorial pages.” As an example of how the Times is open to all points of view in advertisers, Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, “we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom’sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org.”

Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged “significantly more” than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, “and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid,” David says.

Given the gravity of the date, there may have been more competition for the space. Or Freedom’sWatch may have gotten superior placement. Or the ad might have been in color. I don’t have easy access to the print edition at the moment but that information will come out.