Even absent the powerful undersea current that would have quickly carried this story to cable news had it involved a Democrat, I'm a little surprised by the limited play. It is rather delicious. It's just not fair... I want a noise machine too.

The refusal (so far) of mainstream media to pick up the Giuliani gaffe is a sign to me that the paymasters and puppeteers of the GOP have already decided that the only way to hang onto power in 08n is a 'centrist' candidate like Giuliani. So they protect their asset already now.
For the same reason Dems should start hitting Giuliani hard without delay: he is the GOP's only chance. Anyone really believes John (Iraq desaster) McCain or Mitt (FlipFlop) Romney have a snowball's chance in hell in the next election?

I just don't understand how could they be farmers and not be millionaires. I mean, how else could they have gotten those farm subsidies through congress?

The most dangerous thing the Democrats can do is to underestimate their opponents.

I can't wait to hear the Rudy team's damage-control. I'm actually surprised that they haven't decided on the spin they're gonna put on this yet.

And when I say "spin" I mean the Republican version of the term, i.e. "damned lies".

Of course they didn't pick up the story until McCain gave them cover by exploiting it himself. That way they can say they aren't ascribing any particular significance to the episode, it's just conflict between the GOP candidates that they're covering.

On the one hand, on the other hand journalism. They're all worthless.

And yet, they seem to consistently do so, just as they seem to consistently underestimate how far right mainstream media has drifted. It'd be funny if the consequences weren't so dire.

I watched the HBO De La Hoya- Mayweather fight and who would be in the second row but Senator John Mccain with his goodly wife Cindy. You know his smile looks like it's sewn on. The question is who bought the tickets. That fight grossed 150 million and those second row seats, in front of the cameras had to cost a mint, who paid? Campaign expense?? or one hell of a donation? Cindy is 20 years younger than him and although she says she stopped taking Percoset, that she stole from he own medical charity, John sure looked stoned. He just looked forward with that pasted on smile, no reaction to the fight.

To "defend" the big news orgs, this sort of behavior is probably expected from Republicans. It would be a big deal if a Dem did it because it's atypical of most Dems. I think that's how people should start spinning the IOKIYAR line. Instead of complaining about it--which I think is legitimate to do, but not necessarily effective--start using it to your advantage.

Just a thought.

The Iowa media has acknowledged the story.
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/7484172.html

It's from the AP. They haven't covered this themselves.

I'm not sure if your serious or not? But I'll take the bait, because I think the answer is central to why this SHOULD be an issue.

Most farmers are NOT rich.
It is a myth that families are going to lose their farms due to the inheritence tax.

The only farm families affected by the inheritance tax are those on the edge of urban centers who sell their land to developers who need space for shopping malls.

Rudy and his campaign did not understand this. Seems they believed the hype from Grover Norquist and company. It's been pretty well documented where all the noise about the death tax has come from, and here's a hint none of them are hard working farmer.

Being an optimistic guy, I'm going to believe that Rudy and his campaign weren't being cynical, just stupid. Then when they learned they were being stupid (i.e. Iowa farmers are not being hurt by the estate tax), they pulled the plug on an event that was going to highlight their stupidity.

Stated simply, those who are affected by the estate tax are not burdened by it.

As for farm subsidies:
The reason farm subsidies exist is because agriculture is an inherently unpredictable enterprise. Subsidies ensure that there is baseline of food available each year even in low production years. Unfortunately, the system has been gamed by corporate farms.
If you eliminate (as opposed to refine) subsidies, you will be faced with the double burden of family farmers who really will be put out of business and then will need to go on welfare, along with corporate farms operating on lean supply principles which lead supply crunch and price spikes in drought years.

Since when does Maureen Dowd do "class war" stories?

P.S. Whenever you mention The Politico, you should call them "the right-wing news site" or somesuch.

Rudy's gaffe is not as great an issue as that of farm subsidies. The argument for farm subsidies is that they preserve "the family farm", something that deserves support. But in fact, they end up chanelling huge sums of taxpayer money to wealthy corporate farms, with less benefit for the smaller family farms. Moreover, they distort economics.

In the case of Iowa, the government is subsiziding corn-based ethanol, which probably could not survive on its own on purely economic grounds. Think of it. You grow a huge stalk of corn, pick the ears, then the kernels, and use hydrocarbon fuels to convert them to ethanol. Most of the plant is wasted. You have used huge amounts of fertilizer, probably produced using hydrocarbons, and driven a tractor all over the place planting and harvesting the plant, and all you get is the stupid kernels. Is this process even positive from an energy use perspective? Yet Grassley will defend this subsidy with his life.

Ethanol produced from corn is marginally efficient at best. But there are other crops which produce more energy, e.g. soybeans. Bio-diesel fuels produced from soybeans are more energy productive than ethanol from corn. Given the nation's energy problems, why aren't we seeking out more energy-efficient bio-fuels, not in need of government subsidies. We could produce ethanol from sugar much more cheaply, but the powerful sugar lobby maintains high import duties on sugar cane.

Are we still paying tobacco subsidies? even though official government policies are trying to discourage smoking? Couldn't tobacco farmers switch to crops which would produce useful bio-fuels?

Special interests are greatly distorting our economic priorities, placing their own selfish interests above those of the country. Rudy's gaffe is a distraction from discussing more substantive issues -- like energy policy, global warming, and the development of new sources of energy.

Bio-fuels are carbon neutral, because the carbon in the biofuels came directly from the atmosphere; so their use would not only address the Nation's energy needs, they would also address the problem of global warming. They would give farmers a major source of income; they would not require expensive subsidies. And they are non-polluting -- no sulphur dioxide, no nitrous oxide, no mercury.

No, it was during the S&L crisis years ago.

Not due to estate tax. Thanks for clarifying that for people who might not recall how so many farms were forced to auction off all their equipment and so on due to foreclosures.