Insight won't run anti-McConnell 'music-player' ad

Insight Communications Co., the largest cable TV provider in Kentucky, won't be airing an ad by a group advocating public financing of elections that criticizes Sen. Mitch McConnell.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed that Insight opted not to run the ad, which included several QUESTIONABLE STATEMENTS (see update below), as reported by the Herald-Leader.

The NRSC's attorneys challenged the accuracy of the Public Campaign Action Fund's commercial, said a statement from Rebecca Fisher, the group's communications director. The commercial OFFERED A MISLEADING ALLEGATION (see update below) that McConnell voted against funding for body armor for U.S. troops.

It also inaccurately described technology that a non-profit distributes in Afghanistan. The devices that include pro-democracy messages cannot be used as "music players" as the commercial asserts. McConnell helped secure federal grants for the Kentucky-based non-profit organization that builds and distributes those devices.

"Liberal shadow groups operating as a front for the Democrat Party will not be allowed to twist and distort the truth for partisan benefit," Fisher said.

Insight's media affairs office had not returned a call for comment.

UPDATE 11:39 a.m. MORE ON THE BODY ARMOR ISSUE

Under the category of "few things in politics are ever black and white":

The ad's reference to McConnell voting against more body armor for troops (though not attributed in the ads) refers to two measures.

• The first occasion, as mentioned in the previous article, was an April 2003 vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., that would have provided $1 billion for "National Guard and Reserve equipment." According to the Annenberg Political Fact Check's analysis, there "was already money for buying body armor" in another part of the bill.

•  In October 2003, the Senate took a vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., that would have added $322 million in additional money to pay for equipment for troops. McConnell and others did vote against that amendment. As the Annenberg Political Fact Check at factcheck.org notes, however, "it is literally true that he voted against 'additional' body armor funds. But as we have reported before, more money would not have produced any more body armor for troops in Iraq or anywhere else. The military already had increased its orders for body armor ten-fold using existing funds, and suppliers were unable to produce armor fast enough to meet the sudden spike demand."

Another independent organization, Media Matters for America, went on to dispute the Annenberg Political Fact Check's analysis. It's analysis says: "Dodd repeatedly made that his intent in offering the amendment was to make certain that U.S. forces in Iraq were provided adequate body armor, which he described as a 'top priorit[y].'" Media Matters for America doesn't address the issue of whether the industry could fill orders for even more body armor.

In light of the fact that, in a literal sense, McConnell and others did vote against a body armor measure -- even though it realistically would not have resulted in more body armor -- the first part of this post has been changed to more accurately reflect the circumstances. It has been changed from "several pieces of inaccurate information" to "questionable statements." And I have changed the sentence about the body armor claim to read that it was a "misleading allegation" rather than flat inaccurate.

- Ryan Alessi

Comments

I have a great deal of respect for your body of work, Ryan, but there are some bad mistakes in this one, and it needs reworking.

I think the most puzzling (because it's so easy to get right) is this statement:

"The commercial incorrectly alleged that McConnell voted against funding for body armor for U.S. troops."

I don't believe that's correct. In April and October of 2003, he voted to table amendments that would have funded body armor. McConnell of course got well-connected folks to write letters saying he shouldn't have to serve his country because he has bad eyes, or flat feet, or whatever excuse could work. So while he might be able to relate to Senator Craig and his bathroom blues, McConnell obviously had a hard time relating to spending money to help keep our soldiers safe, if there wasn't some benefit in it to his lobbyist friends like there was with the "audio devices" from his buddies to be distributed in Afghanistan.

Whatever benefit those devices had, I sure wish Mr. McConnell had seen fit to instead vote to spend that money on U.S. troops who are being regularly blown to bits in Iraq serving their country.

[Jim A. Stivers]

It’s interesting to note that McConnell has received $17,000 in campaign contributions from Insight employees.

Read More @

http://www.pageonekentucky.com./

ABBOT, JOHN F
NEW YORK,NY 10280
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/CFO
3/30/2007
$2,000

BRECHER, ELLIOT MR
NEW YORK,NY 10019
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/GENERAL COUN
9/25/2006
$1,000

DIETZ, CHARLES E
ORADELL,NJ 07649
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/VP
3/30/2007
$2,000

HALL, KEITH
SIMPSONVILLE,KY 40067
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/SENIOR VICE
10/14/2005
$2,000

HALL, KEITH
NEW YORK,NY 10044
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS
1/15/2002
$1,000

HALL, KEITH MR
SIMPSONVILLE,KY 40067
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/SENIOR VICE
9/25/2006
$2,000

HALL, KEITH MR
SIMPSONVILLE,KY 40067
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/SENIOR VICE
9/25/2006
$1,900

HALL, KEITH MR
SIMPSONVILLE,KY 40067
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/SENIOR VICE
9/25/2006
($1,900)

KNAFEL, SIDNEY MR
NEW YORK,NY 10019
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/CHAIRMAN
9/25/2006
$2,000

KNAFEL, SIDNEY R
NEW YORK,NY 10019
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/CHAIRMAN
3/30/2007
$2,000

KNAFEL, SIDNEY R
NEW YORK,NY 10019
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/CHAIRMAN
3/30/2007
$1,700

KNAFEL, SIDNEY R
NEW YORK,NY 10019
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/CHAIRMAN
3/30/2007
($1,700)

WILLNER, MICHAEL
NEW YORK,NY 10019
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS
1/13/2002
$1,000

WILLNER, MICHAEL MR
NEW YORK,NY 10019
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS/PRESIDENT AN
9/25/2006
$2,000

[John Stamper]

Although we do not have any obligation to monitor comments on this blog, we reserve the right at all times to check this blog and to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us in our sole discretion and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We also reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Why not just *edit* the comments, John?

And why *was* McConnell discharged from the military just ten days after joining? Those records have been mysteriously sealed for a number of years and it's time the public discovered the truth-- whatever the truth may be.

The Democrats in this state have floated rumors about McConnell ever since he ran against Dee Huddleston in 1984. Some of us are old enough to remember that. Those rumors didn't work then and they won't work now. If you have proof of what you claim, let's see it. Otherwise, shut your pie holes.

[Jim A. Stivers]

Greed and lack of oversight have created an avalanche of foreclosures due to the predatory lenders and the a second mortage option. NOW the marginal credit borrowers can't pay and foreclosures are occurring at a rapid rate all across America.

If the FEEDS won't fix the problem then why can' the next session of the General Assembly do something about this predatory lenders and brokers that sell mortgages they know are weak.
jas

LOUISVILLE (AP) -- Court-ordered foreclosures in Jefferson County are on track for a second straight record high this year. A nationwide upheaval in the mortgage market is forcing people throughout the region out of their homes.

Officials say high-risk loans get much of the blame for the national increase as homeowners approved for loans despite shaky credit struggle to pay their monthly bills.

The situation is the same throughout Kentucky and Indiana.

The Mortgage Bankers Association says Kentucky is tied for 11th and Indiana is third in a national ranking based on the percentage of loans going into foreclosure during the April-June quarter.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

“Media Matters for America doesn't address the issue of whether the industry could fill orders for even more body armor.”

“…even though it realistically would not have resulted in more body armor…”

---------

Both of these statements are speculative conjecture; and in no way do they substantively address the now acknowledged fact that McConnell did vote against the additional Body Armor legislation.

On another level they also both run against what I would perceive to be common sense. A manufacturer who has more orders than capacity will increase capacity to increase profits. Legislation that specifically would have targeted this industry would have facilitated a growth in operation and production.

I’ve been reading about this on more than one blog, and it seems pretty clear the ball got fumbled here. I understand not wanting to admit to a mistake, but I don’t think a heavily parsed mea culpa adds value to the writing.

I look forward to your future articles.

Uncle sugar took care of little hunter bates. Bates is a joke, he can not do it on his own. He lets uncle sugar support him with our tax dollars.

I'm giving Alessi the benefit of the doubt on this one, but this is one of the weirder reporting sequences and approaches I've seen in a while.

Things like taking a third party's word for what the actor (Insight) did, and why...that isn't consistent with my understanding of basic principles of seeking primary sources, but I'm guessing he was just having an off day.

[John]

Although it may seem as though the bank would actively want to pursue the foreclosure and get it off the books, so to speak, many large lenders are working on hundreds or thousands of foreclosed properties. Many of the owners will simply give up on the home or be too frightened to ask for more time. The ones that are seriously looking into ways to stop foreclosure, though, will be able to convince the bank that they deserve more time. The bank would willingly offer more time to solve the problem, and it is easy enough to postpone the foreclosure auction. The extra fees and interest will just be added to the balance in the end, anyway, and be counted as an even larger tax deduction for the lender.
http://www.thejohnbeck.tv