GOP Congressman Calls For Hearings Into New York Times/MoveOn Ad
It had to happen -- a GOP Congressman is calling for hearings into The New York Times's decision to publish MoveOn's anti-Petraeus ad at a cheaper-than-usual rate.
GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia has sent a letter to Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman demanding a probe into the "scandal."
"It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct," Davis writes. "You have repeatedly challenged the public statements of administration and private industry officials and sought testimony under oath. It is time for you to give equal treatment to The New York Times."
Davis issued a similar call for hearings last week, but his current one is noteworthy because it was inspired by yesterday's piece by The Times's public editor, Clark Hoyt, which reported that the paper had acknowledged that charging MoveOn the price it paid for the ad was a "mistake."
Davis has powerful political incentives for taking on The Times. He's running for the Senate seat of the retiring John Warner and faces a likely primary challenge from his right -- so attacking the paper is an easy way to put a little sheen on his tarnished conservative bona fides.
The full letter is here. Meanwhile, our take on how Hoyt dropped the ball with his piece on this is here at The Horse's Mouth.
Comments (49)
oleeb wrote on September 24, 2007 4:32 PM:First, I don't think Hoyt dropped the ball, I think that he's carrying the water (as his predecessor did) for the cowards who run the paper. He's not an ombudsman, he's an apologist! Public Editor my ass! He's just the PR guy for the editors.
If anyone ever thought it might not be true that the media is cowed by right wingers and their extremely wealthy corporate cheerleaders all they have to do is take a look at this nonincident.
But, on the matter of Davis' call for a hearing, I hope Henry Waxman gives him the full Cheney and tells him: "Go fuck yourself!"
P J Evans wrote on September 24, 2007 4:39 PM:Is he also going to ask for an investigation of Giuliani's ad, which I understand got the same mistaken rate as Move-On's and has yet to make up the difference, as Move-On has already done?
Daniel wrote on September 24, 2007 4:45 PM:This story broke a while ago and obviously needs to be put in the context of the GOP primary in Virginia in which Davis will run as the moderate against much more conservative Gilmore.
fishbrake wrote on September 24, 2007 4:46 PM:By stupidly condemning a legitimate issue advertisement the Democrats have put themselves on the same side as the GOP, who can now escalate the idiocy at will. There is no point in trying to appease the Republicans on these purely political issues - it's better to fight from the beginning.
I would wonder if the Democrats could learn a lesson here, but since this is exactly how our country got involved in the Iraq war in the first place the answer is clearly no.
Redshift wrote on September 24, 2007 4:51 PM:Another hit from the hacktacular Tom Davis, who didn't think there was anything wrong with briefings from Republican political appointees to government agencies on how they could help "our" candidates, who didn't think there was anything wrong with employing the wife of David Safavian in an oversight role over his agency as he traveled to Scotland with Abramoff, and who found nothing worth investigating when he was chair of Government Oversight except for steroids in baseball.
I look forward to the end of his career of shoveling pork and lining his wife's pockets in January 2009.
SD wrote on September 24, 2007 4:51 PM:Scandal? I'm sorry, I just can't get overly excited about either the ad or the underpayment. The ad falls well within the free speech concept, and if you don't agree with it, well, get over it. And the underpayment-that's the NYT's problem, which seems to have been resolved.
Do you suppose that if the Repugs yap loud and long enough about this that we'll all forget about war deaths, war finances, war profiteers, war mercenaries, corruption in the DoJ and other federal departments, and general fiscal mismanagement? Don't think so.
Color me bored with this one.
dwalter wrote on September 24, 2007 4:52 PM:It appears evident that Rep. Davis believes in free speech for me, but not for thee.
Come on, Congressman Davis. Read the Constitution you swore on a Holy Bible to uphold. You're the scandal here.
Dennis wrote on September 24, 2007 4:58 PM:Reduced price for Move-On or run for free, the Times doesn't need to answer for that. It's the Times business, the Times paper.
Move-On was exercising its right of free speech. Period.
If Davis thinks this warrants a congressional investigation, he doesn't need to be in Washington.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
anon wrote on September 24, 2007 5:03 PM:
Davis is doing this for one reason only: fundraising. He is running for Senate, and direct mailers will stress this to get the far right appease that he is looking out for them. Why did Jesse Helms get his panties in a bunch over a 5k grant from the NEA? it certainly brought more money to his campaign coffers by appealing to social conservatives..
Davis is just milking this for all it is worth.
Mary wrote on September 24, 2007 5:05 PM:Sure thing, and while we're at it, can we also investigate links between all the RW media outlets that happily broadcast the Swiftboaters' propaganda?
PS - WSJ's new owner is loving this.
Anonymous wrote on September 24, 2007 5:14 PM:Anybody ever hear of the first amendment?
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
"laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press"
Or did Bush take this one away too?? I know the mainstream media acts like it, but did he offically take it away??
I don't think so!!
Oh wait a minute, this IS the USA. We can sue anybody for anything they say that we don't like. We can call a friendly greeting 'sexual harrassment.' Welcome to America!!!
anon wrote on September 24, 2007 5:15 PM:...By stupidly condemning a legitimate issue advertisement the Democrats have put themselves on the same side as the GOP, who can now escalate the idiocy at will...
Yup, all the Dems did was provide cover for enemy snipers. Dumb.
And if they had stood behind the Moveon ad, they could have said "Sure, let's take a look at Giuliani's ad and the Moveon ad. And while we've got the NYT guys on the hill lets ask them a few more questions about, oh, their coverage of the lead up to the war or the Wen Ho Lee mess for good measure." But, no. They can't do that now.
To echo SD: Scandal?
Sorry, but taking money from lobbyists and then allowing those same lobbyists to come into the Capitol and write the freakin' laws just like they want 'em -- that's a scandal, as far as I'm concerned.
Talking about small government while all the time draining the treasury and giving contracts to your big donors -- that's a scandal.
Yammering ad nauseum about family values while all the time whoring (Vitter) and procuring (Vitter again) and doping (yeah, that's you Rush) and cheating (Hyde, Livingston, NEWT, and apparently most everyone else) and fathering out of wedlock (Burton, Strom Thurmond, bless his repugnant little soul) and LOOKING FOR SEX IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS (Craig) -- that's a scandal.
But I'm not saying all the Republicans are like that. There's Danforth and ... and ... and ... (awww, hell).
Skippy Jones wrote on September 24, 2007 5:21 PM:This is without doubt one of most laughable things I have read in a LONG time. Violated campaign finance laws? I'm sorry, but whose campaign would this ad relate to? This was a political opinion ad on an issue. Can someone explain to me how that possibly relates to campaign finance laws? WHOSE campaign? Are we that bereft of reason now? This is laughable, mockable, incredulous, petty, silly, childish and contemptuous of the United States Congress and the power of Rep Waxman. Get to the people's business Rep. Davis and stop wasting our time. There really is only one word: contemptuous. Comptemtuous of Congress. Since when are a newspaper's AD RATES the investigatory business of the US CONGRESS? Rep. Davis can go swiftly to hell.
Aaaargh wrote on September 24, 2007 5:22 PM:This screed strikes me as prima facie evidence for Davis to be impeached as an enemy of the Constitution.
phil james wrote on September 24, 2007 5:23 PM:There is actually a good side to this. Republicans who poor money into the Davis and Gilmore campaigns might as well flush it down a toilet for all the good it will do them. They and macaca-man are all losers against Mark Warner. So go ahead Davis take your best shot. And go ahead Repubs, flush it down. Here's to the continued Coulterization and marginalization of the thug party. My money is on Warner and MoveOn.
Jim T wrote on September 24, 2007 5:25 PM:The New York Times should tell the Congressman to go to hell. The New York Times has the right to sell its ad space to whomever it pleases at the rate it wants. I know this seems a bit odd, but the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from engaging in legislative action against speech. But I'll tell you what, if Hoyt gets to hold hearings on Move-On, then the Dems should get hold hearings on the partisan nature of Fox News.
OCPatriot wrote on September 24, 2007 5:27 PM:The Times wimped out, when it could have attacked. Freedom of Speech is all they needed to say. And then they could have pointed to Fox and asked why no one has condemned them or the n and General Petraeus and people like Gonzalez got free air time, no discount here, on Fox News. That, if totaled up, would be far more upsetting than what MoveOn.com did. Why doesn't the Times get on the offensive and call for such an investigation, or why doesn't it at least investigate Fox News itself? Fox's use of their air time is far more extensive than MoveOn.com's single ad. Attack is better than caving in and apologizing. The Times, by the way, can charge whatever the hell they want to for an ad, as does the Wall Street Journal and Fox, and I'd bet that Fox has some large discounts for right-wing groups.
Nin wrote on September 24, 2007 5:31 PM:AS A MILITARY FAMILY MEMBER, I SAY, "WAKE THE HELL UP!"
WE'VE GOT A GOD DAMNED WAR GOING ON AND THESE ASSHOLES WANT TO INVESTIGATE THE NEW YORK TIMES! PRIORITIES INDEED!
LET THEM HANG THEMSELVES ON THIS ONE!
anonymouse wrote on September 24, 2007 5:49 PM:It's sad, but studies show name recognition is all important. It doesn't matter if you're being a genius or an idiot, as long as folks remember your name when their in the booth.
Anyone wondering which catagory Tom Davis falls under?
bmaz wrote on September 24, 2007 6:00 PM:Wow. Guess this kind of confirms that Washington Republican wingnuts think the media is their own plaything.
jeffgee wrote on September 24, 2007 6:04 PM:Weren't these guys in favor of smaller government and less regulation?
Stan T wrote on September 24, 2007 6:11 PM:What would the Congressional hearings possibly accomplish? Congressional investigations are supposed to be about gathering information used in making legislative decisions. If the Times has violated federal election law, that's a matter for the courts; if they haven't, leave them alone entirely.
But the only thing Davis could possibly be going for (besides showboating on the hearing itself), the only thing that could justify legislative hearings on a law that's already been passed and possibly been broken, would be the proposal of a bill of attainder--Congress is not allowed to function in an adjudicatory manner (save impeachment trials).
jeffgee wrote on September 24, 2007 6:12 PM:Raw meat for the dead ender 30 percent GOP base.
Bush said that the Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper. Davis took it to heart.
Pelosi should drive a stake through the heart of this idiocy.
Will she?
This is a re-run of the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" after the election of 2000. Earnest young republicans in high dudgeon over the "injustice", as sincere as David Vitter's paid lover saying "ooh baby, you're so big and strong!"
blogamator wrote on September 24, 2007 6:20 PM:From what I gathered from the NYT PE piece was that the "mistake" was merely in that the NYT staffer told them it would likely appear in the Monday's edition somehow thereby erasing the "standby" rate which was cheaper and pushing it into the "gaurateed" rate.
Ya see in Winnutia World, it isn't standby anymore as soon as you suggest its a sure thing based on the current adds in the que. Doesn't matter that the NYT didn't guarantee the Monday add and therefore didn't charge a higher rate (almost double I believe).
Wingnutia, when will they ever learn?
Davis has nothing, it's all mega-distraction.
I hope if waxman writes back anything to Davis,it is that first he is going to call for an investigation of the slime ball swift boaters and those that backed em...
LP wrote on September 24, 2007 6:35 PM:As Salman Rushdie observed on Bill Maher's show last Friday, it seems like the GOP spends all its time (and bluster) condemning how people talk about the war instead of actually addressing the real war issues.
Anonymous wrote on September 24, 2007 6:44 PM:And, I understand that Congressman Davis has also taken a firm stand against flouride in our drinking water, a Commie conspiracy if there ever was one.
Anonymous wrote on September 24, 2007 7:01 PM:The Democrats have been given yet another chance to show they are vertebrates!
phil james wrote on September 24, 2007 7:12 PM:Davis' predictable call for hearings is just that, since he is running for the Senate and he needs some kind of rallying cry. Since the Party he is running for stands for nothing, has accomplished nothing, basically leaving a gaping hole where the U.S. Consitution and American spirit used to be, I suppose this is the best that he can do. What is more damnable though is the fact that Democrats in Congress might actual even consider acceding to this request much as they have already done with demands for condemnation of the MoveOn ad. It's not fear of terrorists that is spelling our doom but fear of these self-righteous sanctimonious nihilists.
Anonymous wrote on September 24, 2007 7:25 PM:and that would be Tom "phony" Davis?
He's up to bat for the GOP next?
Hope he liked his position cause he's outta there!
Voted "Yes" Before She Voted "Maybe Not"
Break out your Triangulators
Sen Hillary Via Matt Stoller
I have voted against it. I mean, I've voted for Senator Boxer's resolution, which condemned that attack, and also condemned the attacks on Senator Cleland and Senator Kerry. I don't condone it. I voted to condemn it. But again, I would underscore, let's be clear what's going on here. This is an effort to focus on an ad that I condemned and don't condone in order to avoid having to deal with the tough questions about our policy in Iraq.
Wow. She's so experienced!
Why doesn't this "representative" do something important for our country? This guy's as useless as "tits on a boar hog". Reasonable Virginians should boot his butt out as soon as possible.
starwheel wrote on September 24, 2007 7:53 PM:I tend to agree that this seems like ridiculous political posturing; however, I also think it would be fair to find out if the New York Times is selective with the rates it charges to friendly or unfriendly clients.
If we found out Fox News or any of the other networks was offering discounted ad time to right wing PACs vs. left wing PACs, we'd be howling.
Is this a can the Republicans want to open?
fairfax for anyone but davis wrote on September 24, 2007 8:43 PM:As a constituent, I can attest to the fact that this guy is going to get so pwned by Mark Warner in the Senate race. In 2006 he barely beat back an unknown Dem challenger who had very few ads running (and mostly direct mail) until the last week of the campaign. If the DCCC had taken a look here, it might have been more flippable than they thought.
This district is going more and more purple-blue every day. He's actually tried to posit himself as a moderate GOPer, but in actuality he's just a typical slimeball, pulling crap like ensconcing his current (and second) wife in a State Senate seat while she was just his GF, and entagling both of them in wonderful conflict of interest deals benefit--surprise!--her firm. Sound familiar?
davis wrote on September 24, 2007 9:18 PM:
It sounds like a conflict of interest issue. However, if there are ethical infringements involed their should be an investigation launched and further actions taken as needed.
petraeus became a political pawn when he jumped the chain of command and started blowing bush and cheney.
military folks should NOT be immune from free speech expressions of disgust, affrontery and outrage simply because they have lacked the intelligence and the moral turpitude to refuse to participate in an illegal invasion for the sake of a pathological megalomaniac enthralled by a shadow corporate government which has subverted the constitution of the united states and taken control of it like a mugger controls a stolen wallet.
screw the warpigs. screw the congress.
screw hillary clinton.
Waxman should hold the hearings, as long as Eli Pariser of Moveon is called as a witness. The NYT can inform congress on the workings of the 1st ammendment, then Eli can have present his views to congress.
acf wrote on September 24, 2007 11:34 PM:Scandal? There's no scandal, just a political ad that offended the opposition party. Bringing up an argument raised several times since the outset of this story, where were these people when their operatives were running the swift boat attacks on John Kerry, or the many attacks against Al Gore? I can tolerate their constant political attacks, but the shameless hypocrisy just floors me.
acf wrote on September 24, 2007 11:39 PM:As an addendum to my above post, let me add that the Democrats are the majority, not the Republicans. Let's not dignify this 'scandal' nonsense by allowing any hearings at all on it. Why give Republicans an official stage to demagogue? Let them stew in the basement.
heh wrote on September 24, 2007 11:49 PM:Tom Davis, the fanboi of the year. Can you see this guy's mental processes? Demands an investigation on free speech, AS IF!
What an as*s*clown. I hope he seals his sorry fate as a lawmaker with this stupidity. I'm sick of him.
When they were grilling Lurita Doan for violation of the Hatch act, he threw so many softballs at her,he almost had an accident on hisself.
Daniel CAZ Greenberg wrote on September 25, 2007 12:22 AM:Davis is my district's representative. This isn't the sort of thing he's known for.. by and on the whole, he's a local district rep who just votes party-line on national stuff. For him to stand up and cry 'indignation' is unusual.
Given that it's so out of theme, I would say it's a tell, a-la poker. This is his unspoken announcement that he's running against Jim Gilmore for the GOP nod here in the Old Dominion, to face off against Warner (who is almost certain to win given the state's blue trend and his overwhelming popularity here.) for the senate seat.
What this does do, interestingly, is open up Fairfax County, which has been an increasingly populated and blue district represented by a many-term Republican.. into a tale of two unknowns.
Perhaps -I- should run for the seat! Wait.. not old enough yet. Le sigh.
Maybe in 2010. :)
PrometheusSpeaks wrote on September 25, 2007 12:22 AM:And he's what passes for a "moderate" these days in the GOP.
totallynext wrote on September 25, 2007 12:47 AM:Please oh please - Terry Schiavo subpoena making - non Iraq quagmire investigating - cheating wife - Abramoff laundering Congress person.
Please oh Please - make this about you right now and try to investigate a private non - profit buying ad space in a private company.
You are going to make a more complete ass of yourself then normal
thepeoplechoose wrote on September 25, 2007 1:55 AM:Somebody needs to set the GOP straight. Political speech is protected by the first amendment. GOP calls to somehow 'punish' or question the policies of a person or persons or public entity such as the NYT is wrong in every way.
The GOP has their panties in a bunch because MoveOn very properly called Petraeus out on the conduct of his report before the Senate. Republicans have little credibility in attacking the NYT when FOX News blatantly promotes the conservative agenda every day of the week. And FOX does it for free via their conservative talking heads.
The GOP is a bunch of whining mamas boys that can't take it when the very crap they dish out every day is thrown their way. Too damn bad.
Squeaky McCrinkle wrote on September 25, 2007 5:31 AM:I'm getting so tired of all this. It seems to be the sad truth that every American senator and congressperson, Republican or Democrat, is a self-serving, pocket-lining, authoritarian, mealy-mouthed arsehole. Move On indeed!
mark wrote on September 25, 2007 8:45 AM:MoveOn made up the difference in the ad buy.
Will JulieAnnie?
c4logic wrote on September 25, 2007 9:18 AM:Everyone should know by know that to criticize our Dear, Great Leader, George W Bush, his policies, or his agents and surrogates, is treason. Any form of complaint, objection, criticism, or question undermines the Dear Great Leaders efforts to keep us safe from all the brown skinned monsters who want to slit our throats in our sleep. Shame on the godless, ignorant media, and the liberal slime mongers, for casting aspersions on the Noble Character of our Great Warrior Petraeus. They have built a special detainment center for such disloyal Americans! It is only a matter of time before Dear Great Leader declares Marital Law and suspends elections indefinitely.
