Clark Hoyt, the public editor of the New York Times has an article in today’s edition that states the MoveOn.org ad violated the advertising terms of the Times.

But I think 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….

…The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message, which might amount to an illegal contribution to a political action committee. In more than 4,000 e-mail messages, people around the country raged at The Times with words like “despicable,” “disgrace” and “treason.”

President George W. Bush called the ad “disgusting.” The Senate, controlled by Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to condemn the ad….

… FreedomsWatch.org, a group recently formed to support the war, asked me to investigate because it said it wasn’t offered the same terms for a response ad that MoveOn.org got.

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.

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times….

…How did this happen?

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.”…

…For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen’s shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.

Who am I to argue with him on this topic, but what do you want to bet it happens again in the future?

President Bush speaks on the Moveon.org ad and the Democrats.

Well said Mr. President.

The President gave an interview to a few journalists Wednesday afternoon. There is a terrific overview of all the topics addressed at NRO.

I wish I would have been there to hear the President comment on Moveon.org’s ad pertaining to General Petraeus.

The president blasted MoveOn for their “Betray Us” ad in the New York Times and the Democratic silence in response to it. “I was incredulous at first and then became mad.” The president said, “It is one thing to attack me — which is fine.” But the president’s view the attack on Petraeus as “an attack on men and women in uniform.” He said pointedly: “I was looking for the voices from leadership on the Hill and I didn’t hear too many.” He said, “This is wrong” and added that the ad “was uncalled for…and so was the silence” from the Democrats on the Hill.

Mr. President, I don’t think there is any leadership on the Hill any longer, at least not the kind to which many of us were accustomed.

When Bill Clinton was undergoing impeachment proceedings a new group of grassroots democrats started up with the slogan and name of move on.

They wanted to move on from impeachment and get on to other business of the country as they saw it.

Impeachment was a mistake by the republicans at the time and I think everyone realizes now that they went too far. A resolution of condemnation would have served as well as impeachment.

Moveon.org never disbanded after the impeachment, but only got larger to the extent they collect way more than the NRA PAC.

Not only have they been successful in defeating republican candidates in the last cycle, but they are more willing now to go after democrats who disagree with their positions:

MoveOn also punishes Democrats who stray from their liberal, anti-war world view. MoveOn ran a radio ad against Michigan Democratic Rep. John Dingell when he announced his opposition to higher fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks.

The script of the brief radio campaign portrayed a conversation between a father and son about something called a Dingellsaurus. The child asks his father what that is. The script reads in part:

“Someone who’s been in Congress so long, he forgets about the people who sent him there,” says the father.

“Are there any around today?” asks son, Billy, to which the father replies: “Our own Congressman John Dingell. He’s standing in the way of the first energy bill ever that would really combat global warming. It would also help the auto companies in the long run and that means more jobs.”

“Is a Dingellsaurus dangerous?” Billy asks. The father replies: “Very, because if the Dingellsaurus gets his way, we could all be extinct.”

Earlier this month, MoveOn ran a brief television campaign against Washington Democratic Rep. Brian Baird after he returned from a trip to Iraq and announced the Bush troop surge may be achieving important military gains. The ad featured an anti-war Iraq veteran. The script reads in part: “Keeping American soldiers in Iraq for an indefinite period of time being attacked by an unidentifiable enemy is immoral and irresponsible.” It asked viewers to “Tell Rep. Baird: Support Our Troops. Bring Them Home.”

“Just because MoveOn only supports Democrats doesn’t mean it supports all Democrats,” Ritsch said.

We all know the very active politically are the ones who donate their money for political causes.

Moveon.org has a lot of wealthy Hollywood donors I’m sure, as well as other wealthy democrats who give, along with the average Joes who give $50 or $100 contributions to be bundled and given to a favored candidate.

With their full-page New York Times ad last week calling General Petreaus “General Betray Us” we have seen how far below the belt they are willing to hit. The fact most democrats kept quiet about the ad instead of denouncing it shows just how much this group is feared even by the people they support.

Either that or they have no sense of decency to denounce such an ad, I’m not sure which is the case.

It seems to me that Moveon is pulling all the political strings in the Democratic party and I’m not sure that’s so good, but money talks and when it does people tend to do what they are told.

A group called Freedom’s Watch is fighting back against Moveon.org’s nasty NY Times ad placed earlier this week, in which they called General Petraeus “General Betray Us”.

A political group supporting President Bush’s Iraq war strategy with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign is airing a new TV ad denouncing a liberal group’s sharp criticism of Gen. David Petraeus.

The campaign is the second rollout of ads by the group, Freedom’s Watch, and capitalizes on Democratic Party unease over a newspaper ad run this week by MoveOn.org, one of the leading anti-war voices among liberal activists.

Here is their counter ad:

Freedom’s Watch also plans to respond to MoveOn with a print ad in The New York Times, and has demanded the same $65,000 rate that the liberal group paid for its full-page ad. Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David said his organization paid “significantly more” for another full-page ad Tuesday on the 9/11 anniversary.

That ad, however, was a more expensive full-page color ad, compared to MoveOn’s, which was black and white. The rate also would have been higher if Freedom’s Watch asked for a specific date and placement of the ad. David said The New York Times did not offer Freedom’s Watch the $65,000 rate.

Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communication at the Times, said she could not discuss specific advertisers, but said the rate for a special advocacy, full-page, black and white, standby ad is $64,575. At that rate, an advertiser can request that an ad run on a specific date, but cannot be guaranteed such placement.

If you wish to learn more about Freedom’s Watch or view their other videos go here. While you’re at it you may want to send a check to them.

The New York Times ran a sleazy ad just before Gen. Petraeus testified to Congress, calling him General Betray Us. Cute huh?

Well, it seems the New York Times was feeling extra generous that day:

WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined “Cooking the Books for the White House,” the ad which ran in Monday’s Times says Petraeus is “a military man constantly at war with the facts” and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that “General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”

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.

Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.

Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the “family discount.”

Is there any doubt as to the liberal bias of the New York Times now? Not that there was for many of us before.

Hat Tip: Sister Toldjah.

If you haven’t heard about or read the ad go here.