Was The New York Times Rejection Good for McCain?

News today that The New York Times rejected an op-ed piece submitted by John McCain on Friday made big news. This is especially offensive journalism by the NYT given the fact that they ran an Obama piece just days earlier. It was perfectly timed with a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Jordan and allowed him to lay out his Mid East foreign policy on a national stage.

The Grey Lady didn’t agree to give John McCain the same opportunity, issuing a rejection with strict conditions required for acceptance. In this case, the conditions that needed to be met meant a rewritten McCain piece that framed his issues as the NYT saw fit (i.e. discussion of definitive timelines for withdrawal). I’m sure the editors at the Times didn’t change a comma for Obama.

And yet, as an ad guy, I can tell you that all of this is actually good for McCain. The media impressions he’ll gain from the rejection will far outweigh the Monday circ of the NYT op-ed page. The recent campaign for Trojan Condoms is a perfect example. A brand with a small budget gained over 200 million media impressions by getting its ad rejected by CBS and FOX. A few million bucks on late night TV could never touch the attention garnered by airtime on The Colbert Report, The O'Reilly Factor, and VH1's Best Week Ever.

The rejection will only work to galvanize the Right and, if the campaign is smart, become part of the McCain campaign theme. I’m not so convinced, however, of this campaign’s political IQ.

Palestinians Are The Ones Whose Aggression Is Not Proportionate

The New York Times covers the "Israeli aggression" in Gaza last week.

I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:

“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”

You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.

If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.

In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.

10 New Year's Wishes for 2008

1) No Hillary
2) No Obama
3) A New York Giants Super Bowl Victory
4) Status Quo on Health Care (if there’s a Democratic President and Congress)
5) Major comprehensive Health Care Reform (if the Republicans make a sweep)
6) A New York Yankees World Series Victory
7) A doubling of my blog’s readership (this will bring total eyeballs to 8. For any Democrats reading this, that’s 4 people)
8) Catch Osama
9) No nukes for Iran
10) A New York Times cease fire on Rudy

NY Times Buries News About American Victory in Baghdad

I found this article about American victory in Baghdad while trolling the deep waters of The NY Times online news links. You'd think such good news would be a featured, front page article. You'd at least think that it would be featured on the "World" news page. It was neither. Rather, it was hidden beneath the fold in the "World" news link depot on the bottom left of the screen.

This is The NY Times editorializing the news at its worst. It's not always what you say, but rather how and where you say it that tilts a story.

Meanwhile, this news is nowhere to be found in today's paper. I guess American victory in Iraq is not a story the Times is interested in telling. The news editors at the Times should save their leftist opinions for the op-ed page and trust its readers to make up our own minds on the war.

Misleading Health Care Numbers

Greg Mankiw wrote a piece in today's NY Times that calls many accepted beliefs on health care into question: Beyond Those Health Care Numbers.

I'm not saying we need to yank coverage away from those who are in desperate need, but I certainly don't think that we'd be better off with a European health care model. Think about what it's like when you go to the DMV. Now think about what it would be like if you had to go to the DMV when you needed care. They can barely take a good polaroid of your face, how well do you think they'll do when they take an MRI of your brain?

The New York Times Advocates a Tax Hike, but Low Taxes Work

The New York Times ran an opinion piece on taxes and national healthcare that is clearly the antidote to a healthy economy. It’s scary to think that this is the type of view that a Democratic president would champion. The Times says:

“This country’s meager tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the government ill equipped to face the challenges from globalization.

"Germans…paid more in taxes, as a share of their economies.”

But when you look at what makes an economy tick, it’s generally low taxes, limited regulation, and a fair system of justice. Major tax cuts have historically proven that individuals - champions of innovation and limitless human ingenuity - drive positive and robust growth when government is not overbearing. For example, Kennedy’s major tax overhaul, Reagan’s supply-side reform, and Bush’s 2003 program, show cutting taxes, not raising them is the handmaiden of success. Take a look at the three charts at the top, which show revenue, employment, and GDP growth since the Bush cuts were enacted. The third box also shows that the middle class is not shouldering this burden. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Think this only works in the United States? In a 2005 op-ed, Thomas Friedman extolled the virtues of lowering taxes in Ireland, a perennial bottom-feeder.

This is what he had to say:

“Ireland today is the richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg…while those following the French-German social model are suffering high unemployment and low growth…a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5 percent, far below the rest of Europe...And overall government tax receipts are way up.”

Growth and innovation are on the march in the land of St. Pat's. The world is certainly flat when Dell, Intel, and other corporate captains of industry call Ireland home. Among other things, they were both attracted by “low corporate taxes.”

The Times is also a proponent of a Hillary Clinton-type national healthcare:

“From universal health insurance to decent unemployment insurance, other rich nations provide their citizens benefits that the United States government simply cannot afford.

“The consequences include some 47 million Americans without health insurance and companies like General Motors being dragged to the brink by the cost of providing workers and pensioners with medical care.”

Greg Mankiw, professor of economics at Harvard University counters this perspective nicely:

"What the Times seems to be saying is that because companies like General Motors have promised levels of compensation too large to make them competitive in the international marketplace, we should shift the responsibility for some of that compensation from the companies to the taxpayer. An alternative approach is for the companies to reduce compensation to levels they can afford. One might respond that reduced compensation would be hard on workers. But so would the higher taxes needed to pay for the national health insurance the Times is lobbying for. There is no free lunch here."

As economies in the 21t century become more knowledge and information based, successful governments will allow individuals to flourish and promote a light-footprint approach. Heavy-handedness will only serve to stifle both rich and poor alike.

9/10 Is Over

Much of the media, led by The New York Times, continues to accuse the Republican candidates, particularly Rudy Giuliani, of running on the back of September 11th. A couple of recent examples:

"Giuliani...cannot simply keep muttering “9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11” until February."

And here in Thomas Friedman's September 30th column.

Friedman’s conclusion is that “9/11 has made us stupid…We need a president for 9/12.” His premises are below:

• Our government is exporting fear; Guantanamo = lower tourism

• Bad infrastructure: The Minnesota bridge and bad cellular service vs. European cell service

I’m perplexed at the connections Friedman makes to arrive at his “9/11 made us stupid” conclusion. Is weak tourism really something that should be playing a role in our foreign policy decisions? In my mind, being at war with an enemy depends on the exportation of fear. This isn’t a friendly soccer match; we’re up against perhaps the biggest threat in the history of our nation. We want the bad guys to be scared. By the way, check out this article from Slate, which sites an average 13 lb. weight gain and a fondness for bagels (how ironic) by the prisoners. Poor them.

And someone needs to help me understand how our “9/11 stupidity” has anything to do with local infrastructure issues. Is George Bush responsible for the inefficiency of state government? It seems that Friedman infers that living in "9/12" means doing things the European way. The idea that the federal government should be held accountable for EVERYTHING is ludicrous. We live in a federalist society in which there is a relationship between city, state, and federal authority, and we need to stop blaming the Iraq War for hurricanes, tsunamis, and dropped phone calls.

Friedman and many of those who share his voice are actually stuck in the world of 9/10. This is naive and irresponsible. It shows a lack of understanding for the world that tore into us on 9/11. Pretending we’re not up against an existential threat isn’t going to make people like us more, hold up our bridges better, or make our cars more environmentally friendly. Let’s let the government focus on keeping us safe and let the free markets determine whether or not we want better cell service.