*I DO NOT LIKE RON PAUL, AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM*. that having been said--NewsCorp stock dropping...? Cool!

What a blast from the past ! I had forgotten how much I detested Abe Rosenthal's writings when he was head of the Op Head page. If he ever wrote anything that was true, except for his name, it escaped my notice.

"In short, it's a historic battle over the future of the country as a surveillance state."

Why does this statement not result in rioting in the streets? How far must this nation and it's corrupt government sink before Americans stand up for what is right?

note how they crop his his bald dome

Glenn, The Paul supporters claim to be able to influence News Corp stock price is unfortunately characteristic of the rest of their quixotic campaign. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Ron Paul, like that he isn't just another mindless mainstream candidate and don't think he's wrong on everything, just many things. However, over short periods, stock moves are primarily (if paradoxically) influenced by the market which took a nose dive yesterday (and even those causality is not falsifiable, fyi). More directly, boycotting stocks is famously ineffectual, given that the money in the market tends to be profit seeking (@#!@#!!). This is not to say that boycotting shouldn't be undertaken, but that it should be done on principle and not on delusions of efficacy (we'll have to wait for an infinitely more altruistic planet for that).

As regards lumping all NYT columnists together, I should think we are running the danger of not differentiating between establishment/beltway folks whose crimes against fact and reason vary hugely...

I had heard the claims of Ron Paul supporters that calls to sell the News Corp stock were affecting the price. This doesn't seem to be the case, although Glenn correctly notes that the stock is down significantly in recent months.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=3m&s=NWS&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC

Starting about October 19, NWS (the symbol for News Corp) began underperforming against the market in a significant way. The gap in performance has been widening fairly consistently since that time, as the chart shows. The red line is the market, and the blue line is NWS. When the market is up, NWS is generally up less. When the market is down, NWS has been down by a greater percentage. Nothing significant happened after the call for divestment of the stock, likely because the vast majority is held by institutional interests and mutual funds who are not making political statements on behalf of Ron Paul.

The guy at 0:20 is NOT one of our guys! Our guys hats are pointier and they only parade at night, by the light of the flickering cross.

Interesting point about the stock dumping campaign, not fully convinced however as the last few days' volumes aren't really anything above normal.

I would guess that the drop has more to do with the worsening economic outlook - media stocks tend to be quite sensitive as corporate advertising budgets are usually the first thing to be cut. That and the market has taken a dim view of Murdoch handing the reins to junior.

Not that I wouldn't love to see the campaign gain traction however - Rupert Murdoch is a businessman first and foremost and will much more likely respond to actions such as this.

A few days ago I sent a letter to the editors at the NY Times, to which I subscribe. I levelled them with the empty threat of cancelling my subscription. Empty because I don't think they really care what one person does. One less subscription isn't worth fretting ove.

I'm going to write them back, however, and let them know that I will be taking action that will most definitely affect them.

I'm going to stop shopping at Bloomingdales.

I live in NYC. My wife and I make a nice living; mid-six figures. We have plenty of expendable income. And until the Times dumps Kristol we won't be spending any of it at Bloomies.

Last Wednesday, 12/26, approximately one-fifth of the front section of the NY Times consisted entirely of ads for Bloomingdales. About 6 and 1/2 pages out of 32 total. That's one helluva lot of ad money.

I'll take my business to Saks and Barneys. Until the Times dumps Kristol.

If one really thinks about it, the page that hosts Maureen Dowd, Tom Friedman and David Brooks is a prefectly appropriate place for Bill Kristol to be.

And I left a comment somewhere (the earlier thread on Kristol, I think) that he would be an even bigger and better target for Glenn at the Times. [rubs hands together...]

I also mentioned a bit of deja vu... the same feeling I had when I heard that Tom DeLay had claimed "I am the Federal Government," and I knew that he had over-reached, and it was just a matter of time... I had that same feeling about this story, and having read Glenn's post, it's only stronger now. Apparently (reading between the lines?), Rosenthal must have felt badly for Kristol when he lost his gig at Time, and offered him a prime slot at the Times as a consolation prize. (Shades of Ashcroft!) And now we learn that he (i.e., Rosenthal) also broke the rules at the Times in making this offer.

Yep, Kristol's days are numbered, too. He might last out his contract year, but I won't be surprised if he doesn't. I would be very surprised, though, if he gets renewed.

* * *

Oh, and what's with the "we've still got Friedman, Dowd," et al? As if they're supposed to be liberals? I had an epiphany the other day... the reason that some folks continue to think Dowd is a liberal is because she writes satire, and everyone knows that satire-writing-ability is a recessive gene in conservatives. Okay, so she's an outlier in that regard. But that's all. Otherwise, she's a closet Republican. It's obvious if you merely pay attention to her obsessions with "Mommy" and "Daddy" and the hyper- or lack of- masculinity of the candidates.