Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-includes/functions.php on line 330

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /home/leftinlowell/leftinlowell.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-support/wordpress-support.php(10) : runtime-created function(1) : eval()'d code(1) : eval()'d code on line 1
Left In Lowell » Blog Archive » “Idon’tknowski” Furious Over Ad…Which Quotes Him

Left In Lowell

Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs

2013 Candidate Questionnaire Responses!

October 15, 2007

“Idon’tknowski” Furious Over Ad…Which Quotes Him

by at 2:17 pm.

As David says, Ogo’s campaign keeps driving itself further into total parody territory. Ogo now appears to be blustering against the stations which are airing a Tsongas ad.

Truthfully, I saw the ad yesterday and wondered if this wasn’t going to get Idon’tknowski’s dander up, since he’s been angry before about being “misrepresented.” I didn’t know the source of the “Ogonowski called the SCHIP program harmful” part of the ad until I got on the nets today. I must say, he dug himself right into this one…since he did actually call it harmful.

SCHIP was originally intended to help poor children. Instead Congress worked to expand another big-government program that actually harms those working class children and families it was supposed to help. We all support helping poor children and families, but government seems unable to help those who need us. When I helped organize the largest airlift of aid in New Hampshire National Guard history to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, I saw firsthand how big government programs like FEMA don’t work for the American people.

His own words, from an op-ed he wrote.

Hilarious…so, children who could get insurance under this expanded plan are now harmed by the (false) “fact” that some illegal children might get it? (Since that’s a total lie, it’s moot, but besides that, the internal logic just doesn’t work). Then Idon’tknowski has the gall to say he’ll sue the TV stations who run the ad quoting his own op-ed? And it’s now Niki’s job to try to explain Ogo’s lack of logic (ie his “nuanced” position that this SCHIP bill is bad because of boogymen undocumenteds getting health care)? Give me a break.

Seriously, seriously unhinged, this one. He needs to get back to haying and leave politics for the less sensitive, more informed crowd.

Update: and he might be in violation of the FCC rules for advertising himself…it’s like this guy has no intention of winning an election.

33 Responses to ““Idon’tknowski” Furious Over Ad…Which Quotes Him”

  1. joe Says:

    The same desperate last-minute-faux-controversy strategy that the Republicans pulled in November 06, when they pretended not to understand John Kerry’s joke.

    It’s not supposed to make sense, Lynne. It’s not supposed to hold up under scrutiny. It’s just supposed to give his backers something to pretend they’re offended by, and drive up Nikki’s negatives.

  2. Lynne Says:

    True…but the more we can point out how startlingly silly it is, and the more this understanding gets out, the more one can combat this sort of dishonest tactic. Sunlight works wonders on things.

  3. Doug Says:


  4. waittilnextyr Says:

    Money is power, and power attracts money - it is a vicious circle we are in.

  5. LuvinLowell Says:

    Thought this might be of interest regarding Patrick Murphy, since we are talking about candidates

  6. MrThom Says:

    “might be in violation of the FCC rules” Would be like the New York Times giving special rates to Move On.org to run attack ads then lying about it and saying they got the standard no guaranteed date rate even though the date was guaranteed. Sorry Ogo is an idiot but that kinda slipped out. ;)

  7. mrigney Says:

    How unelectable does Fred Smerlas have to be that they cleared him out of the field to make way for Ogonowski?

  8. MVP Says:

    One word : CLOWN!

  9. Mr. Lynne Says:

    MrThom. Did that happen? Got a link?

  10. Thom B Says:

    Link and exerot below.


    MoveOn.org said yesterday that it paid The New York Times $77,508 after the newspaper revealed that its advertising department had undercharged the organization for an advertisement that ran two weeks ago and proved controversial.
    Many critics, including some of the Republican presidential candidates as well as Vice President Dick Cheney, had accused the newspaper of giving subsidized rates to MoveOn, a liberal antiwar organization, out of sympathy with its views. The advertisement challenged the credibility of Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the American forces in Iraq, and asked whether he should be called “General Betray Us.”

    The newspaper had maintained that it charged MoveOn the same “standby” rate of $64,575 that it charges all advocacy groups for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that can run anytime in a seven-day window. But the newspaper’s spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis, was quoted Sunday by The Times’s public editor, Clark Hoyt, as saying an advertising sales representative had “made a mistake” in granting the discount.

    The sales representative should have charged $142,083, she said, because MoveOn wanted the advertisement to run on a specific day — Monday, Sept. 10 — and was therefore not entitled to the “standby” rate.

  11. joe Says:

    Breaking News: Billing Department Makes Error.

  12. Dan M. Says:

    Whats up with the Murphy advertisements? All set thanks
    And if any of you have listened to Fred Smerlas on the local sports station in the Boston, you can hear him 2-3 days a week making a solid case for why he is unelectable in any normal situation.

  13. Right in Lowell Says:

    For whatever it’s worth:

    Spoke with Tsongas campaign office workers in Downtown over the weekend. They seem nervous. Also ran into a couple of Tsongas poll workers today. They said it’s a four point race and that they’d be out knocking on doors all day today. They also had a very surprised and nervous look on their faces as we spoke.

    I found that number four interesting, as that was the final margin between Niki and Eileen, wasn’t it? Sounds like it could be a somewhat interesting night.

  14. Dan M. Says:

    I am shocked, how is a war supporting republican doing so well? It doesn’t make any sense to me. My only thought is that maybe it will be close in Lowell (which Nikki lost anyway) but Nikki will pick up momentum in the more liberal cities and towns. I guess I shall wait and see like you fine folks..

  15. MrThom Says:

    Joe says “Beaking News: Billing Department Makes Error.”

    I’m sure it was an honest error and had nothing at all to do with who was placing the ad. In could have just as easily been the John Birch Society placing the ad. Why don’t I believe that? They cheated. They lied. They got caught.

  16. Mr. Lynne Says:

    I suppose it could be either. Even if its a mistake it is particularly damning because it still compromises the appearance of integrity, if not their actual integrity. Either is bad and so I think the whole affair should be under suspicion.

  17. joe Says:

    The whole thing seems so unlikely. What does Move On Dot Bloody Org care about $60,000, when we’re talking about the single most important media buy they’ve done this year?

  18. MrThom Says:

    What I find damning is the cut rate, the denial and the mea culpa all got very little airtime.

  19. Eleanor Rigby Says:

    Instead of relying on third party interpretations, here are the actual FCC rules re: political ad rates


    Section 73.1942 [47 CFR §73.1942] Candidate rates.

    (a) Charges for use of stations. The charges, if any, made for the use of any broadcasting station by any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office in connection with his or her campaign for nomination for election, or election, to such office shall not exceed:

    (1) During the 45 days preceding the date of a primary or primary runoff election and during the 60 days preceding the date of a general or special election in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period.

    (i) A candidate shall be charged no more per unit than the station charges its most favored commercial advertisers for the same classes and amounts of time for the same periods. Any station practices offered to commercial advertisers that enhance the value of advertising spots must be disclosed and made available to candidates on equal terms. Such practices include but are not limited to any discount privileges that affect the value of advertising, such as bonus spots, time-sensitive make goods, preemption priorities, or any other factors that enhance the value of the announcement.

    (ii) The Commission recognizes non-preemptible, preemptible with notice, immediately preemptible and run-of-schedule as distinct classes of time.

    (iii) Stations may establish and define their own reasonable classes of immediately preemptible time so long as the differences between such classes are based on one or more demonstrable benefits associated with each class and are not based solely upon price or identity of the advertiser. Such demonstrable benefits include, but are not limited to, varying levels of preemption protection, scheduling flexibility, or associated privileges, such as guaranteed time-sensitive make goods. Stations may not use class distinctions to defeat the purpose of the lowest unit charge requirement. All classes must be fully disclosed and made available to candidates.

    (iv) Stations may establish reasonable classes of preemptible with notice time so long as they clearly define all such classes, fully disclose them and make available to candidates.

    (v) Stations may treat non-preemptible and fixed position as distinct classes of time provided that stations articulate clearly the differences between such classes, fully disclose them, and make them available to candidates.

    (vi) Stations shall not establish a separate, premium-period class of time sold only to candidates. Stations may sell higher-priced non-preemptible or fixed time to candidates if such a class of time is made available on a bona fide basis to both candidates and commercial advertisers, and provided such class is not functionally equivalent to any lower-priced class of time sold to commercial advertisers.

    (vii) [Reserved]

    (viii) Lowest unit charge may be calculated on a weekly basis with respect to time that is sold on a weekly basis, such as rotations through particular programs or dayparts. Stations electing to calculate the lowest unit charge by such a method must include in that calculation all rates for all announcements scheduled in the rotation, including announcements aired under long-term advertising contracts. Stations may implement rate increases during election periods only to the extent that such increases constitute “ordinary business practices,” such as seasonal program changes or changes in audience ratings.

    (ix) Stations shall review their advertising records periodically throughout the election period to determine whether compliance with this section requires that candidates receive rebates or credits. Where necessary, stations shall issue such rebates or credits promptly.

    (x) Unit rates charged as part of any package, whether individually negotiated or generally available to all advertisers, must be included in the lowest unit charge calculation for the same class and length of time in the same time period. A candidate cannot be required to purchase advertising in every program or daypart in a package as a condition for obtaining package unit rates.

    (xi) Stations are not required to include non-cash promotional merchandising incentives in lowest unit charge calculations; provided, however, that all such incentives must be offered to candidates as part of any purchases permitted by the licensee. Bonus spots, however, must be included in the calculation of the lowest unit charge calculation.

    (xii) Makes goods, defined as the rescheduling of preempted advertising, shall be provided to candidates prior to election day if a station has provided a time-sensitive make good during the year preceding the pre-election periods, perspectively set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, to any commercial advertiser who purchased time in the same class.

    (xiii) Stations must disclose and make available to candidates any make good policies provided to commercial advertisers. If a station places a make good for any commercial advertiser or other candidate in a more valuable program or daypart, the value of such make good must be included in the calculation of the lowest unit charge for that program or daypart.

    (2) At any time other than the respective periods set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, stations may charge legally qualified candidates for public office no more than the changes made for comparable use of the station by commercial advertisers. The rates, if any, charged all such candidates for the same office shall be uniform and shall not be rebated by any means, direct or indirect. A candidate shall be charged no more than the rate the station would charge for comparable commercial advertising. All discount privileges otherwise offered by a station to commercial advertisers must be disclosed and made available upon equal terms to all candidate for public office.

    (b) If a station permits a candidate to use its facilities, the station shall make all discount privileges offered to commercial advertisers, including the lowest unit charges for each class and length of time in the same time period, and all corresponding discount privileges, available upon equal terms to all candidates. This duty includes an affirmative duty to disclose to candidates information about rates, terms conditions and all value-enhancing discount privileges offered to commercial advertisers. Stations may use reasonable discretion in making the disclosure; provided, however, that the disclosure includes, at a minimum, the following information:

    (1) A description and definition of each class of time available to commercial advertisers sufficiently complete to allow candidates to identify and understand what specific attributes differentiate each class;

    (2) A description of the lowest unit charge and related privileges (such as priorities against preemption and make goods prior to specific deadlines) for each class of time offered to commercial advertisers;

    (3) A description of the station’s method of selling preemptible time based upon advertiser demand, commonly known as the “current selling level,” with the stipulation that candidates will be able to purchase at these demand-generated rates in the same manner as commercial advertisers;

    (4) An approximation of the likelihood of preemption for each kind of preemptible time; and

    (5) An explanation of the station’s sales practices, if any, that are based on audience delivery, with the stipulation that candidates will be able to purchase this kind of time, if available to commercial advertisers.

    (c) Once disclosure is made, stations shall negotiate in good faith to actually sell time to candidates in accordance with the disclosure.

    (d) This rule (§ 73.1942) shall not apply to any station licensed for non- commercial operation.

    [57 FR 209, Jan. 3, 1992; 57 FR 27709, June 22, 1992]

  20. Mr. Lynne Says:

    Joe… the mark isn’t against Move On.

  21. joe Says:

    What I find damning is the cut rate, the denial and the mea culpa all got very little airtime.

    Yeah, I’m sure all the irrelevant chatter about Iraq, the surge, and the future direction of our foreign and military policy - rather than how the New York Times billed one of their advertisers - was a real bummer.

  22. joe Says:

    Mr. Lynne,

    I get that. My point is, why would the New York Times bother?

  23. MrThom Says:

    “Yeah, I’m sure all the irrelevant chatter about Iraq, the surge, and the future direction of our foreign and military policy - rather than how the New York Times billed one of their advertisers - was a real bummer. ”

    The only possible response is Huh? RedMass mentioned it BlueMass didn’t. The Herald did the Globe didn’t. That’s my point. Unbiased journalism is the ultimate oxymoron. It was how the New York Times gave preferential treatment to someone they agreed with politically that bothers me. It’s the fact someone can actually believe it was a “billing error” that makes me lose all hope in the political process. By the way, tooth fairy - not real.

  24. Right in Lowell Says:

    49% of the vote in. 51-46 Ogonowski

    Someone please remove all rope and shoe laces from Lynne and Mimi’s houses just in case this holds up.

  25. Right in Lowell Says:

    You can sleep easy ladies. WBZ radio said the AP just called it for Niki at about 9:15

  26. Mr. Lynne Says:

    You’re probably right. Its probably a mistake. But its a bad mistake because of the ammo it gives those who want to attack their integrity.

  27. K-R-S Says:

    RiL…THAT was funny…

  28. joe Says:

    RedMass mentioned it BlueMass didn’t. The Herald did the Globe didn’t.

    My point exactly - look at who was talking about Iraq, our country’s security, our foreign policy, and our strategy in the War on Terror.

    And look at who was talking about an ad in a newspaper.

  29. Right in Lowell Says:

    I can’t believe we just had the biggest election around these parts in ages, and not one single post from our victorious friends. Not even a response to my needling.

    Were all the “progressives” out late celebrating with the “insiders” at the Brewery and are sleeping off hangovers today?

  30. Mr. Lynne Says:

    No posts on Redmassgroup either.

  31. Dan M. Says:

    why post? better candidate won.

  32. Right in Lowell Says:

    You’re right, Dan. Except, this is a blog. You know, where the point is to actually discuss things.

  33. Dan M. Says:

    my post was in response to:
    # Right in Lowell Says:
    October 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    I can’t believe we just had the biggest election around these parts in ages, and not one single post from our victorious friends. Not even a response to my needling.

    Were all the “progressives” out late celebrating with the “insiders” at the Brewery and are sleeping off hangovers today?

    but thanks for the definition of Blog.. ill write that down..

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

[powered by WordPress.]

If you are not on Twitter and want to follow our feed on Facebook, click "Like" for our FB page.
BadgermillCity logo


Recent Posts