As irritating as it is to see a liberal group like MoveOn get favorable treatment by the "newspaper of record," it is not a violation of election laws for the New York Times to run an ad of that type at reduced rates.

James Hanson at Blackfive has written a complaint to the FEC about the ad. Uncle Jimbo's letter to the FEC says:

This ad also says "Cooking the books for the White House" making it political communications and subject to FEC regulations.

His premise is that political advocacy is limited by the FEC for groups like MoveOn or maybe for the New York Times.

In general, Uncle Jimbo is right. The FEC regulates political advocacy. But he ignores the limitation placed on the FEC that it only regulate speech as it relates to federal elections.

Yes, the MoveOn ad makes reference to the White House. However, that reference cannot be said to include any candidate for federal election. As we frequently remind Democrats, George Bush is not running for election in 2008.

In fact, I cannot find any reference to an upcoming election (let alone a specific candidate) at all in the MoveOn ad.

The real issue here is freedom of speech. I support the right of conservative groups and individuals to demand reduced rates for their ads in the Times. But I deplore any attempt by conservatives to use the FEC to shut down political speech.

Newspapers can advocate for a cause all they want. It is grossly progressive to try and convince the government to restrict that advocacy.

On the other hand: Moron-commenter km raises the possibility that the discount on the ad may have constituted a contribution to MoveOn Political Action. Contributions to PACs by corporations are prohibited by law.

Incidentally, I also oppose that restriction on political speech. If the NYTimes broke the law by contributing to a PAC, sure they're fair game. But I don't have to like it.

UPDATE: Moron-commenter km has stayed on this and discovered that the NYTimes may be in more trouble than previously thought. He looked in the FEC handbook and found:

If a corporation or labor organization sells goods or services to a political committee at a price below the usual or normal charge, a prohibited contribution results in the amount of the discount. 100.52(d). A reduced price is not considered a contribution, however, if it is offered by the vendor in the ordinary course of business and at the same amount charged to nonpolitical clients.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 11:57 AM | Comments (25)
Post contains 435 words, total size 3 kb.

Sadly, the great majority apparently tucked tail and surrendered, with only three Brave Warriors of Allah actually eager for DoD-catered martyrdom.

In news closely related on top of Drudge, Bush will address the nation tonight to ask the country to take a "fresh look" at the new facts on the ground in Iraq.

When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to “find common ground” on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to “start doing some redeployment,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

“No you’re not, Mr. President,” Ms. Pelosi interjected. “You’re just going back to the presurge level.”

The testy exchange, recounted by three people who attended the session or were briefed on it, provides a peek into how Mr. Bush will try to sell Americans on his Iraq strategy when he addresses the nation at 9 p.m. Thursday. With lawmakers openly skeptical of his troop buildup, Mr. Bush will cast his plan for a gradual, limited withdrawal as a way to bring a divided America together — even as he resists demands from those who want him to move much faster.

The prime-time address will be the eighth by Mr. Bush on Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, the latest iteration of his efforts to sketch what he calls “the way forward.” It will be the first time he has described a plan for troop reductions, a radical departure for a president who has repeatedly defied his critics’ calls to bring the troops home.

Yet as the president outlines his plan, his critics say he is trying to have it both ways. He is, they say, taking credit for a drawdown that has been envisioned since he first announced the current buildup on Jan. 10 — a withdrawal that had to be carried out unless he was willing to take the politically unpalatable step of extending soldiers’ tours further.

The White House declined on Wednesday to preview Mr. BushÂ’s speech, but one senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid upstaging the president, said the reductions would be heavily conditioned on the situation in Iraq and would fall far short of the rapid withdrawal Democrats want.

The fact is that the military is seriously overtaxed at this point. Bush surely should have created two new divisions prior to the Iraq War, but it's questionable how much such an impact such a common-sense move would have had.

Meanwhile, the super strong, tough Democrats agitate further for surrender, and suggest the exciting new mission of "counter-terrorism" and training Iraqi forces in Iraq.

Gee, why didn't we think of that. Killing terrorists and training Iraqi forces. Why, it all sounds so obvious when you put it like that!

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 487 words, total size 3 kb.

As Russel Ziskey said of the Warsaw Pact, "They're Pussies!"

Finally finding fault with Hillary!:

Senator Clinton said that believing General Petraeus' testimony requires a 'willing suspension of disbelief.' I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate an advertisement run by a radical left wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life. If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States.

This is a nice sentiment, but actually McCain's crappy campaign finance reform law seems to forbid the Democrats from doing what he claims they ought to. Though I suppose it has long been the law that parties and candidates cannot "coordinate" messages with supposedly-independent issue advocacy groups.

It has been suggested that even publically commenting on such an ad would constitute such "coordination," a public rather than private bit of coordination stating "This particular message is unhelpful to us; please try again."

I had hoped the far left, left to its own devices, would so alienate the swing voters with its various lunacies that the avalanche of soft, shady money to liberal PACs would have a net-zero kind of impact, but I'm not nearly sure that's the case. Still, on occasion, the Lunatic Left will buy its rhetoric that it's actually the "political center" and indulge itself in fiascoes like this.

Posted by: Ace at 11:34 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

WeÂ’ve all seen how the media can magically turn a story about a US attack on dozens of terrorists nto an attack on a wedding with women, children and unicorns suffering the most.

Reuters really outdoes themselves today in this story about coalition air strikes on Taliban thugs.

HereÂ’s the leadÂ…

KABUL (Reuters) - U.S.-led coalition airstrikes killed nearly a dozen Islamist Taliban fighters in the southern province of Zabul overnight, the U.S. military said, as the bloodiest period since the militants' 2001 ouster grinds on.

Yeah, the bloodiest period for the terrorists.

After noting the US military said that over 250 Taliban had been killed since late August, Reuters wants you to know that you should probably take that with a grain of salt sinceÂ…

There were no independent accounts of how many people were killed or what happened. The Taliban were not immediately available for comment.

Do they really have “The Taliban” on speed dial? Are they on Reuters AIM Buddy List? You know why they weren’t available Reuters? They are either hiding in the mountains with their goats or are getting blown to pieces. Calling back their press flacks is a low priority compared to dodging all the incoming they’ve had to deal with lately.

Congratulations to our men and women who were sent to Afghanistan to chew bubble gum or kick ass. Unfortunately for the terrorists, our guys seem to be out of bubble gum.

H/t Captain Lex

Posted by: DrewM. at 11:08 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

The power of a small font.

Posted by: Ace at 10:15 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

Suitably Flip, who's all over this story like Larry Craig on piece of toilet paper on the lavatory floor, finds that Democrats and the DSCC are generously offering to return Hsu's direct donations, but somehow keep missing the donations from his shady associates. Flip helps them "follow the money," as they say.

I think they ought to give him a finder's fee for his work, as he's apparently hunting down illicit "donations" they're incapable of finding for themselves. Since it must be oh so hard to find these illegal contributions (I know the DNC is searching with all their heart), I just think Flip should be compensated for his detective-work.

Question: Is there any particular reason this oft-abused, oft-criminal position of "bundler" should be allowed to remain legal? This isn't really a question of free political expression via money -- money can still be donated without a "bundler." But "bundlers" seem to exist almost exclusively for the purpose of laundering illegal contributions.

Posted by: Ace at 09:52 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Specifically they endorse drawing down 30,000 troops at some point in the near future (which is I imagine the scheduled rotation back homeside) and keeping on 130,000 at least through next summer.

Plurality. It's enough.

Posted by: Ace at 09:09 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

In-kind contribution.

We're in a gray area here. But while the media has a campaign finance exemption as to editorial content and reportage, I'm not sure if that exemption applies to direct discounts for advertising.

As a reader noted yesterday, this might actually just be the tip of the iceberg. As people start comparing and info starts leaking, we may find a systematic discount for liberal-leaning organizations in the NYT and other MSM outlets.

No Gray Area At All, says Gabriel:

It's not a gray area. Campaign finance laws limit contributions to candidates. The Times' contribution, if it can be said to have made one, was to an independent organization.

Yes, but... there are still disclosure laws to abide by, aren't there? I don't believe it's the case that donations to 537's are entirely unregulated, are they?

Posted by: Ace at 08:58 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Is this something? I dunno. It's too cute, until the end, when it takes a decidedly uncute turn.

Thanks to DaveP.

Posted by: Ace at 08:49 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

An attempt at a mini, high-impact Tet. Important is the symbolism, that Al Qaeda can continue to operate in Anbar, even with security improvements. Though it has to be noted no one ever said Al Qaeda was utterly expelled from that province.

What effect this will have on the new alliance is unknown.

Iraqi tribal leader Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, a key figure in U.S. efforts to turn local residents against al-Qaeda in the restive Anbar province, was killed today by a roadside bomb, U.S. military and Iraqi sources confirmed.

Abu Risha was a leading member of the Anbar Salvation Council, a group formed a year ago Thursday that proved critical to a recent reduction in insurgent violence in the province. He worked closely with U.S. officials, a fact that made him a target of militants angry about his decision to cooperate with the United States and his ability to convince other tribal sheiks to follow.

He and two bodyguards were killed near his home in Ramadi, a town that as recently as February was under the effective control of al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters. The explosion at roughly 3:20 p.m. local time destroyed the vehicle they were riding in.

An associate and fellow sheik, Jubeir Rashid, said members of the council expected attempts on Abu Risha's life, but vowed that "it will not deter us."

"It is a major blow to the council, but we are determined to strike back and continue our work," Rashid said, according to the Associated Press.

...

"This is a tragic loss," Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, said of Abu Risha's death. "It's a terrible loss for Anbar province and all of Iraq. It shows how significant his importance was and it shows al-Qaeda in Iraq remains a very dangerous and barbaric enemy."

Along with reaffirming the ability of insurgents to operate in Anbar, Abu Risha's assassination could raise questions about the future of the tribal coalition that had pulled together to quell al-Qaeda influence.

Petraeus, in Washington where he delivered a report to Congress this week, said he was confident the coalition will hold. In his congressional testimony this week, Patraeus called the advances in Anbar "the most significant development in the past six months" in Iraq.

"I think that the tribes will pull together and go after whoever did this," Petraeus said in an interview with The Washington Post.

Some more background on Abu Risha here, at Alphabet City.

Thanks to TLCS.

Related: Not quite fair as CNN has reported Sunni insurgents fighting Al Qaeda previously, but who cares about being fair to CNN?

Posted by: Ace at 08:29 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.