Daily Kos--Thinks bloggers being paid-Where is my CHECK?
Daily Kos
I am a total loss to understand why this, really mind-numbingly ignorant person has one of the highest trafficked blogs in the blogosphere.
Today, the Daily Kos says about the ethical lapse of persons "paying bloggers". . .and he's really just whining about some survey conducted by a "Columbia Journalism School" professor (boo. . .hoo. . a hideously biased school with someone there who is.. . . .my god! BIASED! but this time it looks like to the right. . )
Anyway, he ends todays article with:
"Fact is, the examples of unethical behavior are all on the Right, and so he threw us into his little survey for "balance", even if such balance doesn't come close to existing."
But I'm sitting here having just read some of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" by Byron York. [incidentally, the title is tongue-in-cheek and based upon one of Hillary's favorite accusations during the time when her husband was dogged by "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". . ]. In this book, we find out that vast sums of "Rich Guy" money was funneled into the Kerry campaign via idiotically violative campaign financing compliance by several organizations. . . .
YES THAT'S RIGHT . . our beloved, humanistic, Democrat fundraisers decided to simply flagrantly and dishonestly violate the rules which they so earnestly sought to enact. . .but that's just part of it. . . we are talking about ethical lapses, so . . .
Quoting the book:
"And the power was concentrated in very, very few hands. According to federal records compiled by the nonpartisan tracking group Politial Money Line, in the 2004 race the largest part of the funding for pro-Democratic 527s came from just five people, Soros gave $27,080,105. His good friend and partner in supporting the 527s, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis, gave $23,997,220. Hollywood mogul Stephen Bing gave $13,952,682. And Herbert and Marion Sandler, friends of Soros and the founders of Golden West Financial Corporation, gave $13,007,959. Together, that came to $78,037,966--more than the $75 million in federal funds that John Kerry and George W. Bush each received to run their entire post-convention campaigns. And the grand total spent by Democratic-supporting 527s in the drive to defeat Bush topped $230 million--nearly two and a half times the amount spent by Republican-supporting 527s."
So what is a 527? You ask? Glad you thought of that. . .this is a legal code section which allows for an exemption to the normal Federal Election Campaign Finance rules. . .the idea, the FUNDAMENTAL idea (one which is STUPID, but I'll get to that in a minute) of Fed Election Campaign Finance Reform, was to eliminate JUST THIS KIND of deep pockets financing, by very wealthy individuals. . .the rules left only one rich person who could contribute to an individual's race. . .THEMSELVES. . . .(YES! That DOES mean that Rich persons have a huge advantage. . .it's true! That's why many of us call politicians----IDIOTS). This stupid rule has a Stupid Name--McCain-Finegold. . .remember that. . .Stupid Rule. . .Stupid Names. . .(i.e. stupid pols. .)
So we're supposed to have gotten Daddy Warbucks out of campaign financing. . but that has not happened, what happened is the Democratic Party (read the book. . .please!) subverted the Election finance rules. . .flaunting them openly and with the most blatant disregard for any rule of law that I've ever encountered. .
Here's an example:
QUOTE:In June 2004 I went to a dinner in Washington put on by the liberal organizing group Campaign for America's Future. The emcee for the evening, the anti-Bush gadfly Arianna Huffington, made a running joke of McCain-Feingold, one that the audience--which included George Soros himself--joined in on.
Huffington, who had been an outspoken supporter of reform, reminded the crowd that the Campaign for America's Future was forbidden by law from advocating the election or defeat of a specific federal candidate. But she said that despite the law, she wanted to talk about a certain president of the United States whom she would refer to a "Buddy." No names, please--that would qualify as a partisan attack. "Buddy," Huffington said, ". .lied about the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq; he "would not appear before the September 11 Commission"' and he "wanted to repeal the bill of rights except the part about guns."
"Just between you and me, and not speaking for anybody but myself in a completely nonpartisan way," Huffinton concluded with a smile, "Buddy is in need of a loooooooong vacation, so let's give him one on November 2!" Later she expressed the hope that "we could get Buddy back to Crawford, not in a squeaker but in a landslide."
After Huffington spoke, New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer, a rising star in Democratic politics, played along with the joke. "Somebody said about Buddy, he is Richard Nixon without the competence," Spitzer told the crowd. "Buddy doesn't get it."
It was all qute amusing, and the crowd loved it. Huffington aand Spitzer had toyed with the principle of nonpartisanship that lay at the heart of campaign finace laws, and the message was: Isn't this silly? We don't really have to live by these rules, do we? END QUOTE
This kind of behavior was really quite typical in the entire effort leading up to John Kerry's defeat in the 2004 election. Every aspect of the McCain-Feingold rules were twisted and the result was that this last presidential election was extremely unbalanced in the sense of which side had REALLY RICH PERSONS as the main source of funding. . .the answer: JOHN KERRY. Despite the usual assumption that the Republican party is the one getting all the rich person's donations, it really is not anywhere near that with the GOP. . .NO, the Democrats could be characterized as the party of the ultra-Wealthy. . .
Also, as you can see above, the ethical behavior even of Attorney General, Spitzer is truly less than satisfying. They just DON'T GET IT! That most of us know them for the creeps that they are. And persons like Spitzer, though they do a good job regulating industry, they are still oh, so stupid when it comes to politics. .
The people aren't that stupid, in fact that is why they voted Bush into office. . .the electorate is SMART.
Chris
Ps--There is a thing called the "Law of Unintended Consequences". . .what this means is that you need to assume that your intentions may not be followed in setting up a rule, a law, or a system. . . rather, you need to figure out that human ingenuity, will be brought to bear to subvert your idea. When campaign finance reform was enacted, they could not eliminate the use of an individual's money for their own campaign, but they DID eliminate, (at least they THOUGHT they did this) other individuals making large donations in nominal amounts of money. What has happened is the unintended consequence that we have seen much greater concentration of political power and influence in the hands of the super-wealthy and we now have a more difficult time sifting through the records of 527 organizations, and compiling this information with the conventional side of campaign finance. Of course anyone with a solid Economics background would have figured out that the power of money would be used to subvert this process. . .the important check on the super-wealthy is INFORMATION . . . .This cheesy behavior melts in THE LIGHT OF DAY. . .when we all know what creeps Soros, Ellen Malcom (of EMILY'S List) and Harold Ickes, and MoveOn.org really are. . .the worst kind---creeps with POWER and money. . .
crt
I am a total loss to understand why this, really mind-numbingly ignorant person has one of the highest trafficked blogs in the blogosphere.
Today, the Daily Kos says about the ethical lapse of persons "paying bloggers". . .and he's really just whining about some survey conducted by a "Columbia Journalism School" professor (boo. . .hoo. . a hideously biased school with someone there who is.. . . .my god! BIASED! but this time it looks like to the right. . )
Anyway, he ends todays article with:
"Fact is, the examples of unethical behavior are all on the Right, and so he threw us into his little survey for "balance", even if such balance doesn't come close to existing."
But I'm sitting here having just read some of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" by Byron York. [incidentally, the title is tongue-in-cheek and based upon one of Hillary's favorite accusations during the time when her husband was dogged by "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". . ]. In this book, we find out that vast sums of "Rich Guy" money was funneled into the Kerry campaign via idiotically violative campaign financing compliance by several organizations. . . .
YES THAT'S RIGHT . . our beloved, humanistic, Democrat fundraisers decided to simply flagrantly and dishonestly violate the rules which they so earnestly sought to enact. . .but that's just part of it. . . we are talking about ethical lapses, so . . .
Quoting the book:
"And the power was concentrated in very, very few hands. According to federal records compiled by the nonpartisan tracking group Politial Money Line, in the 2004 race the largest part of the funding for pro-Democratic 527s came from just five people, Soros gave $27,080,105. His good friend and partner in supporting the 527s, Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis, gave $23,997,220. Hollywood mogul Stephen Bing gave $13,952,682. And Herbert and Marion Sandler, friends of Soros and the founders of Golden West Financial Corporation, gave $13,007,959. Together, that came to $78,037,966--more than the $75 million in federal funds that John Kerry and George W. Bush each received to run their entire post-convention campaigns. And the grand total spent by Democratic-supporting 527s in the drive to defeat Bush topped $230 million--nearly two and a half times the amount spent by Republican-supporting 527s."
So what is a 527? You ask? Glad you thought of that. . .this is a legal code section which allows for an exemption to the normal Federal Election Campaign Finance rules. . .the idea, the FUNDAMENTAL idea (one which is STUPID, but I'll get to that in a minute) of Fed Election Campaign Finance Reform, was to eliminate JUST THIS KIND of deep pockets financing, by very wealthy individuals. . .the rules left only one rich person who could contribute to an individual's race. . .THEMSELVES. . . .(YES! That DOES mean that Rich persons have a huge advantage. . .it's true! That's why many of us call politicians----IDIOTS). This stupid rule has a Stupid Name--McCain-Finegold. . .remember that. . .Stupid Rule. . .Stupid Names. . .(i.e. stupid pols. .)
So we're supposed to have gotten Daddy Warbucks out of campaign financing. . but that has not happened, what happened is the Democratic Party (read the book. . .please!) subverted the Election finance rules. . .flaunting them openly and with the most blatant disregard for any rule of law that I've ever encountered. .
Here's an example:
QUOTE:In June 2004 I went to a dinner in Washington put on by the liberal organizing group Campaign for America's Future. The emcee for the evening, the anti-Bush gadfly Arianna Huffington, made a running joke of McCain-Feingold, one that the audience--which included George Soros himself--joined in on.
Huffington, who had been an outspoken supporter of reform, reminded the crowd that the Campaign for America's Future was forbidden by law from advocating the election or defeat of a specific federal candidate. But she said that despite the law, she wanted to talk about a certain president of the United States whom she would refer to a "Buddy." No names, please--that would qualify as a partisan attack. "Buddy," Huffington said, ". .lied about the weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq; he "would not appear before the September 11 Commission"' and he "wanted to repeal the bill of rights except the part about guns."
"Just between you and me, and not speaking for anybody but myself in a completely nonpartisan way," Huffinton concluded with a smile, "Buddy is in need of a loooooooong vacation, so let's give him one on November 2!" Later she expressed the hope that "we could get Buddy back to Crawford, not in a squeaker but in a landslide."
After Huffington spoke, New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer, a rising star in Democratic politics, played along with the joke. "Somebody said about Buddy, he is Richard Nixon without the competence," Spitzer told the crowd. "Buddy doesn't get it."
It was all qute amusing, and the crowd loved it. Huffington aand Spitzer had toyed with the principle of nonpartisanship that lay at the heart of campaign finace laws, and the message was: Isn't this silly? We don't really have to live by these rules, do we? END QUOTE
This kind of behavior was really quite typical in the entire effort leading up to John Kerry's defeat in the 2004 election. Every aspect of the McCain-Feingold rules were twisted and the result was that this last presidential election was extremely unbalanced in the sense of which side had REALLY RICH PERSONS as the main source of funding. . .the answer: JOHN KERRY. Despite the usual assumption that the Republican party is the one getting all the rich person's donations, it really is not anywhere near that with the GOP. . .NO, the Democrats could be characterized as the party of the ultra-Wealthy. . .
Also, as you can see above, the ethical behavior even of Attorney General, Spitzer is truly less than satisfying. They just DON'T GET IT! That most of us know them for the creeps that they are. And persons like Spitzer, though they do a good job regulating industry, they are still oh, so stupid when it comes to politics. .
The people aren't that stupid, in fact that is why they voted Bush into office. . .the electorate is SMART.
Chris
Ps--There is a thing called the "Law of Unintended Consequences". . .what this means is that you need to assume that your intentions may not be followed in setting up a rule, a law, or a system. . . rather, you need to figure out that human ingenuity, will be brought to bear to subvert your idea. When campaign finance reform was enacted, they could not eliminate the use of an individual's money for their own campaign, but they DID eliminate, (at least they THOUGHT they did this) other individuals making large donations in nominal amounts of money. What has happened is the unintended consequence that we have seen much greater concentration of political power and influence in the hands of the super-wealthy and we now have a more difficult time sifting through the records of 527 organizations, and compiling this information with the conventional side of campaign finance. Of course anyone with a solid Economics background would have figured out that the power of money would be used to subvert this process. . .the important check on the super-wealthy is INFORMATION . . . .This cheesy behavior melts in THE LIGHT OF DAY. . .when we all know what creeps Soros, Ellen Malcom (of EMILY'S List) and Harold Ickes, and MoveOn.org really are. . .the worst kind---creeps with POWER and money. . .
crt
Comments