Oh, and btw, GWB has signed up 6,000.000 people for grass roots campaigning. Howard Dean, "Mr. Grassroots" himself, has only 600,000.
This is getting fun.
Grassroots
GWB didn't "sign" anybody up. This is an already existing database.
Oh, and by the way, grassroots is when "the people" decide to do something, NOT when the party tells them too. Having the GOP send out soldiers to sign up new voters is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the people seeking the candidate out on their own. What a crock!
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the GOP is trying to steal the term "grassroots" for their campaign. Absolutely fvcking hilarious. They wouldn't even be considering this term if it weren't for Howard "Only 600,000" Dean. This is the most disingenuous notion to come from the Bush campaign headquarters yet. Grassroots my ass! Since this re-election is already in the bag (according the SDW, Trumpt and Scott), why would GWB even want to borrow or steal the Democratic platform?
And they say we (Dems) having nothing original to add to the debate. They're afraid of the real grassroots movement, so all they can do is dilute the term "grassroots" until it is absolutely meaningless. Wow! You guys take the cake.
Steal, lie, out-spend, distort. I'm sure your very proud.
Organization alone cannot elect Bush to a second term. Given the reality that the president's campaign team cannot control such potentially decisive factors as the economy or events in Iraq, officials are determined to maximize their advantage in areas they can control. Rarely has a reelection committee begun organizing so early or intensively -- or with the kind of determination to hold state party and campaign officials, and their volunteers, accountable for meeting the goals of the Bush team.
In Ohio, for example, more than 70 elected officials and volunteer workers dial into a conference call every other Wednesday at 7 p.m. to report on their efforts to recruit leaders and voters, and to hear updates from Bush's campaign headquarters in Arlington. Roll is called, which initially surprised participants used to less regimented political operations.
Roll call? Accountability for sign-up quotas? This is not how the Dean campaign is ran.
A true, authentic "grassroots" movement does not require regimented quotas and deadlines. The movement itself is highly motivated and often surpasses expectations without such Gestapo tactics.
Quote:
Republican officials say these efforts are necessary to counteract voter mobilization by Democrats and their allies in organized labor and liberal interest groups, who plan to spend substantially more than $100 million on get-out-the-vote efforts.
Although Republicans have their own network of outside groups, from the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Business to the Christian Coalition, GOP strategists say privately that none of them comes close to matching the resources, sophistication or fealty of organized labor and liberal groups.
The above is an interesting quote from the same article SDW tried using to his favor, yet he failed to mention this one small fact. Still, I prefer wingnut hubris over an innate fear of losing.
Also, I noticed the GWB's blog doesn't allow its readers to post comments. There apparently is no forum either. The Dean campaign reads what their membership posts constantly. Several fantastic ideas have emerged from the blog. This will only strengthen the candidate. GWB's site appears to be fearful of opening up its blog to comments. Perhaps they're afraid of Trolls running amok. Oh, well.
What's next? Will GWB starting ending his stump speeches with, "You have the power!" It wouldn't surprise me.
I think so. But some might say I start too many threads as it is.
Not only did they keep the Roll-call open for 3 hours and let the HSS Secretary onto the floor to lobby representatives... but they used bribes as well.
Yup... you could say that the rules no longer apply to the Ruling Party.
GWB didn't "sign" anybody up. This is an already existing database.
Oh, and by the way, grassroots is when "the people" decide to do something, NOT when the party tells them too. Having the GOP send out soldiers to sign up new voters is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the people seeking the candidate out on their own. What a crock!
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the GOP is trying to steal the term "grassroots" for their campaign. Absolutely fvcking hilarious. They wouldn't even be considering this term if it weren't for Howard "Only 600,000" Dean. This is the most disingenuous notion to come from the Bush campaign headquarters yet. Grassroots my ass! Since this re-election is already in the bag (according the SDW, Trumpt and Scott), why would GWB even want to borrow or steal the Democratic platform?
And they say we (Dems) having nothing original to add to the debate. They're afraid of the real grassroots movement, so all they can do is dilute the term "grassroots" until it is absolutely meaningless. Wow! You guys take the cake.
Steal, lie, out-spend, distort. I'm sure your very proud.
You know I haven't really tossed in my two cents because the premise of the thread itself is stupid. But to suggest that the DNC has never created a database of their supporters is about the most naive thing I can imagine.
I'm not going to argue the definition of grassroots with you either. If you want to believe that all the Republican support is only from big corporations while Democrats are asking billionaires for millions in soft money and buying radio stations to boot, then go ahead and delude yourself.
The Dems have created an entity that isn't even a political party to collect all their soft money that they themselves helped outlaw for being "corrupting." The double standard is sickening. What the hell do you call taking 15 million from ONE MAN. What do you call all major candidates opting out of public financing while at the same time complaining about there being too much money in politics.
As for the notion of this thread. I attended the Republican National Convention in 1996 in San Diego. I can tell you that there were 3 media members there for every actual delegate and alternate delegate. So even if the entire Republican Delegation stayed on a ship. (what 538 people?) where would the alternates delegates, the entire families of all these delegates, the "honorary delegates" and so forth all stay? Where would the likely 2,000 media people plus all their camera people, and crew all stay?
Plus I can tell you that there are gatherings and events for these delegates and associated crew all week. Those wouldn't all be held aboard a cruise ship. They will be held all over town.
You know I haven't really tossed in my two cents because the premise of the thread itself is stupid. But to suggest that the DNC has never created a database of their supporters is about the most naive thing I can imagine.
I'm not going to argue the definition of grassroots with you either. If you want to believe that all the Republican support is only from big corporations while Democrats are asking billionaires for millions in soft money and buying radio stations to boot, then go ahead and delude yourself.
The Dems have created an entity that isn't even a political party to collect all their soft money that they themselves helped outlaw for being "corrupting." The double standard is sickening. What the hell do you call taking 15 million from ONE MAN. What do you call all major candidates opting out of public financing while at the same time complaining about there being too much money in politics.
As for the notion of this thread. I attended the Republican National Convention in 1996 in San Diego. I can tell you that there were 3 media members there for every actual delegate and alternate delegate. So even if the entire Republican Delegation stayed on a ship. (what 538 people?) where would the alternates delegates, the entire families of all these delegates, the "honorary delegates" and so forth all stay? Where would the likely 2,000 media people plus all their camera people, and crew all stay?
Plus I can tell you that there are gatherings and events for these delegates and associated crew all week. Those wouldn't all be held aboard a cruise ship. They will be held all over town.
Nick
Great rant. But, you need to relax and take a big breath.
None of this is what I was talking about (of course both sides should amass a database). For Bush to claim he has six million NEW members is a fabrication. My response was to SDW's claim that Republicans are enjoying the largest grassroots ever. Which is a joke. You guys wouldn't even be using the word "grassroots" if it weren't for Dean. Period.
Personally, I don't care where the delegates stay. That's between them, their party and their contributors.
First off... whining about Moveon.org and ACT and the various new progressive think tanks is silly.
Whining about a single liberal billionaire is equally silly.
The progressive movement is moving beyond the confines of the party and it's base supporters. Civil Rights groups, Unions, Environmentalists... and the party has little to do with it.
What's so offensive about a centrist progressive radio netowork and programming?
Murdoch has the 4th largest media conglomerate in the world. And it's a mighty political machine too.
Now... on to the boat.
He wasn't going to just have a party or two there... he thought it would be a great place for all the lobbyists and republican politicians to schmooze away from prying eyes. A former staffer of his is the Advocate for the Cruise line... Hey... I wanted DeLay to have his luxury accommodations... would be a great snub to rile up the New Yorkers.
First off... whining about Moveon.org and ACT and the various new progressive think tanks is silly.
Whining about a single liberal billionaire is equally silly.
The progressive movement is moving beyond the confines of the party and it's base supporters. Civil Rights groups, Unions, Environmentalists... and the party has little to do with it.
What's so offensive about a centrist progressive radio netowork and programming?
Murdoch has the 4th largest media conglomerate in the world. And it's a mighty political machine too.
Now... on to the boat.
He wasn't going to just have a party or two there... he thought it would be a great place for all the lobbyists and republican politicians to schmooze away from prying eyes. A former staffer of his is the Advocate for the Cruise line... Hey... I wanted DeLay to have his luxury accommodations... would be a great snub to rile up the New Yorkers.
Actually there is nothing wrong with it, until it is done by Republicans apparently and then it is wrong, biased, hateful, etc.
I remember Newt getting slammed by Dems with ethics complaints regarding a book deal and his course "To Renew America." Then Hillary grabs 8 million but of course that isn't influence peddling. The Dems grab 15 million but of course that isn't "soft money" or "corrupting."
As for the boat, I hate to break this to you, but there is plenty of schoozing regardless of whether there is a boat or not. I bet the idea was killed in part because the boat is simply too small. Even holding 2,000+ there are a lot of tag-a-longs on these events. The smoozing already takes place away from prying eyes for both parties. You think the NEA or NOW invites the media in for their meet and greets between the candidates and the delegates? Please...take your naivity and double standards and get a clue.
Newt got smashed because what he was doing was exactly what former Speaker Jim Wright had done -- signed a book deal with terms that raised questions of propriety. It was an issue of hypocrisy -- Newt led the brigade that forced Wright to resign due to the book deal.
Newt got smashed because what he was doing was exactly what former Speaker Jim Wright had done -- signed a book deal with terms that raised questions of propriety. It was an issue of hypocrisy -- Newt led the brigade that forced Wright to resign due to the book deal.
Wright's book deal didn't raise "questions." It was outright wrong and would have been found so if the charges were not dismissed via his resignation. His "royalty" rate was 55% and it was found that he was basically selling the book as a form of bribery. Thus you don't have to give me a $50,000 bribe, you just have to go buy X number of my books that nets me $50,000.
Likewise you neglect to mention that Gingrich, admittedly due to pressure, did not take the advance. Clinton did.
So, just to be clear, Republicans called bad, don't take the money. Democrats call bad, take the money and smile.
Because of the concern regarding advances and legislative business, the house passed an ethics rule against book advances. The senate hasn't and Hillary has her 8 million toward her house on the hill where she can talk about those evil, rich special interests without including herself.
Isn't Hillary's book still on the Bestseller list?
How dare she take an advance for a book that's sold!
It's in its second printing.
I know Rush can't believe it... but it sold... ALOT.
Obviously you don't understand the concept of advance. She would have been paid the same amount in royalties for the number of books sold. She just got it before the sales, in a lump sum, that she needed to buy the house she wanted, while claiming no influence peddling, from Viacom, a company that makes Murdock look small.
It did move over a million copies, but then they have promoted the hell out of it, and printed those million as part of the first run. Honestly how many authors get a million book first run?
As for how it is doing now, it is at number 35. Well below Stone Cold Steve Austin's latest book.
It did move over a million copies, but then they have promoted the hell out of it, and printed those million as part of the first run. Honestly how many authors get a million book first run?
As for how it is doing now, it is at number 35. Well below Stone Cold Steve Austin's latest book.
Nick
The book sold over one million copies in its first month alone. Did Stone Cold Steve Austin do that well?
What the hell do you call taking 15 million from ONE MAN.
Building a pretty well-financed organization. This is nothing new for Republicans because they already have a bunch of well-financed organizations themselves- and yes- they receive large donations from private individuals as well. Richard Mellon Scaife or that guy who owns the Washington Times ring a bell? I don't think there's anything wrong with that?
The book sold over one million copies in its first month alone. Did Stone Cold Steve Austin do that well?
Actually he probably did. We could debate which our country is more likely to buy, a book from Stone Cold or from Hillary Clinton, but in the end we would all just end up depressed. I actually have no idea how many books Austin has sold, but I know the WWE sells lots of stuff, not to me, but to plenty of kids I teach.
Building a pretty well-financed organization. This is nothing new for Republicans because they already have a bunch of well-financed organizations themselves- and yes- they receive large donations from private individuals as well. Richard Mellon Scaife or that guy who owns the Washington Times ring a bell? I don't think there's anything wrong with that?
You miss the point. When Republicans do it, Democrats call it wrong. When Democrats do it Democrats call it..... well... I'm waiting...
How about a concrete example of what you're talking about?
I think the Hillary example was pretty concrete.
How about complaining about big media conglomerates, which Dean mentioned he would bust up by the way, and the Republican "talk radio echo chamber" while preparing to buy their own radio stations?
Honestly it sounds like... well it's wrong, until we can do it too.
I think the example with Soros is pretty concrete too. Why circumvent the soft money prohibition which they declared corrupting and made illegal? They have to in part because Republicans have more small donors (regardless of Democratic contentions), the small donors give an larger average donation and thus they have a lot more hard money. However that is the process the Dems claimed they wanted. The little guy giving little donations. They even helped pass the legislation and then they go around it with 15 million dollar donations.
Understand I don't personally care that they start these outside groups. I personally contend that money wants to come into politics and when you seek to limit it, all you do is feed the lawyers as they find ways to bend the rules. However my own personal view is no limits, full disclosure. Thus I'm not being hypocritical. It is however hypocritical to claim that you want category limits, contribution limits and campaign limits and then toss them all aside.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, and btw, GWB has signed up 6,000.000 people for grass roots campaigning. Howard Dean, "Mr. Grassroots" himself, has only 600,000.
This is getting fun.
GWB didn't "sign" anybody up. This is an already existing database.
Oh, and by the way, grassroots is when "the people" decide to do something, NOT when the party tells them too. Having the GOP send out soldiers to sign up new voters is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the people seeking the candidate out on their own. What a crock!
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the GOP is trying to steal the term "grassroots" for their campaign. Absolutely fvcking hilarious. They wouldn't even be considering this term if it weren't for Howard "Only 600,000" Dean. This is the most disingenuous notion to come from the Bush campaign headquarters yet. Grassroots my ass! Since this re-election is already in the bag (according the SDW, Trumpt and Scott), why would GWB even want to borrow or steal the Democratic platform?
And they say we (Dems) having nothing original to add to the debate. They're afraid of the real grassroots movement, so all they can do is dilute the term "grassroots" until it is absolutely meaningless. Wow! You guys take the cake.
Steal, lie, out-spend, distort. I'm sure your very proud.
Organization alone cannot elect Bush to a second term. Given the reality that the president's campaign team cannot control such potentially decisive factors as the economy or events in Iraq, officials are determined to maximize their advantage in areas they can control. Rarely has a reelection committee begun organizing so early or intensively -- or with the kind of determination to hold state party and campaign officials, and their volunteers, accountable for meeting the goals of the Bush team.
In Ohio, for example, more than 70 elected officials and volunteer workers dial into a conference call every other Wednesday at 7 p.m. to report on their efforts to recruit leaders and voters, and to hear updates from Bush's campaign headquarters in Arlington. Roll is called, which initially surprised participants used to less regimented political operations.
Roll call? Accountability for sign-up quotas? This is not how the Dean campaign is ran.
A true, authentic "grassroots" movement does not require regimented quotas and deadlines. The movement itself is highly motivated and often surpasses expectations without such Gestapo tactics.
Republican officials say these efforts are necessary to counteract voter mobilization by Democrats and their allies in organized labor and liberal interest groups, who plan to spend substantially more than $100 million on get-out-the-vote efforts.
Although Republicans have their own network of outside groups, from the National Rifle Association and the National Federation of Independent Business to the Christian Coalition, GOP strategists say privately that none of them comes close to matching the resources, sophistication or fealty of organized labor and liberal groups.
The above is an interesting quote from the same article SDW tried using to his favor, yet he failed to mention this one small fact. Still, I prefer wingnut hubris over an innate fear of losing.
Also, I noticed the GWB's blog doesn't allow its readers to post comments. There apparently is no forum either. The Dean campaign reads what their membership posts constantly. Several fantastic ideas have emerged from the blog. This will only strengthen the candidate. GWB's site appears to be fearful of opening up its blog to comments. Perhaps they're afraid of Trolls running amok. Oh, well.
What's next? Will GWB starting ending his stump speeches with, "You have the power!" It wouldn't surprise me.
wonder if this will be investigated too.
What a '"victory" for republicans.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091787/
wonder if this will be investigated too.
What a '"victory" for republicans.
This is so serious it should really be its own thread, no?
Not only did they keep the Roll-call open for 3 hours and let the HSS Secretary onto the floor to lobby representatives... but they used bribes as well.
Yup... you could say that the rules no longer apply to the Ruling Party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/02/ny...D-BOAT.html?hp
The funny thing is that DeLay saw no problem with it... he had to have it EXPLAINED to him.
Originally posted by Northgate
GWB didn't "sign" anybody up. This is an already existing database.
Oh, and by the way, grassroots is when "the people" decide to do something, NOT when the party tells them too. Having the GOP send out soldiers to sign up new voters is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the people seeking the candidate out on their own. What a crock!
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the GOP is trying to steal the term "grassroots" for their campaign. Absolutely fvcking hilarious. They wouldn't even be considering this term if it weren't for Howard "Only 600,000" Dean. This is the most disingenuous notion to come from the Bush campaign headquarters yet. Grassroots my ass! Since this re-election is already in the bag (according the SDW, Trumpt and Scott), why would GWB even want to borrow or steal the Democratic platform?
And they say we (Dems) having nothing original to add to the debate. They're afraid of the real grassroots movement, so all they can do is dilute the term "grassroots" until it is absolutely meaningless. Wow! You guys take the cake.
Steal, lie, out-spend, distort. I'm sure your very proud.
You know I haven't really tossed in my two cents because the premise of the thread itself is stupid. But to suggest that the DNC has never created a database of their supporters is about the most naive thing I can imagine.
I'm not going to argue the definition of grassroots with you either. If you want to believe that all the Republican support is only from big corporations while Democrats are asking billionaires for millions in soft money and buying radio stations to boot, then go ahead and delude yourself.
The Dems have created an entity that isn't even a political party to collect all their soft money that they themselves helped outlaw for being "corrupting." The double standard is sickening. What the hell do you call taking 15 million from ONE MAN. What do you call all major candidates opting out of public financing while at the same time complaining about there being too much money in politics.
As for the notion of this thread. I attended the Republican National Convention in 1996 in San Diego. I can tell you that there were 3 media members there for every actual delegate and alternate delegate. So even if the entire Republican Delegation stayed on a ship. (what 538 people?) where would the alternates delegates, the entire families of all these delegates, the "honorary delegates" and so forth all stay? Where would the likely 2,000 media people plus all their camera people, and crew all stay?
Plus I can tell you that there are gatherings and events for these delegates and associated crew all week. Those wouldn't all be held aboard a cruise ship. They will be held all over town.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You know I haven't really tossed in my two cents because the premise of the thread itself is stupid. But to suggest that the DNC has never created a database of their supporters is about the most naive thing I can imagine.
I'm not going to argue the definition of grassroots with you either. If you want to believe that all the Republican support is only from big corporations while Democrats are asking billionaires for millions in soft money and buying radio stations to boot, then go ahead and delude yourself.
The Dems have created an entity that isn't even a political party to collect all their soft money that they themselves helped outlaw for being "corrupting." The double standard is sickening. What the hell do you call taking 15 million from ONE MAN. What do you call all major candidates opting out of public financing while at the same time complaining about there being too much money in politics.
As for the notion of this thread. I attended the Republican National Convention in 1996 in San Diego. I can tell you that there were 3 media members there for every actual delegate and alternate delegate. So even if the entire Republican Delegation stayed on a ship. (what 538 people?) where would the alternates delegates, the entire families of all these delegates, the "honorary delegates" and so forth all stay? Where would the likely 2,000 media people plus all their camera people, and crew all stay?
Plus I can tell you that there are gatherings and events for these delegates and associated crew all week. Those wouldn't all be held aboard a cruise ship. They will be held all over town.
Nick
Great rant. But, you need to relax and take a big breath.
None of this is what I was talking about (of course both sides should amass a database). For Bush to claim he has six million NEW members is a fabrication. My response was to SDW's claim that Republicans are enjoying the largest grassroots ever. Which is a joke. You guys wouldn't even be using the word "grassroots" if it weren't for Dean. Period.
Personally, I don't care where the delegates stay. That's between them, their party and their contributors.
Whining about a single liberal billionaire is equally silly.
The progressive movement is moving beyond the confines of the party and it's base supporters. Civil Rights groups, Unions, Environmentalists... and the party has little to do with it.
What's so offensive about a centrist progressive radio netowork and programming?
Murdoch has the 4th largest media conglomerate in the world. And it's a mighty political machine too.
Now... on to the boat.
He wasn't going to just have a party or two there... he thought it would be a great place for all the lobbyists and republican politicians to schmooze away from prying eyes. A former staffer of his is the Advocate for the Cruise line... Hey... I wanted DeLay to have his luxury accommodations... would be a great snub to rile up the New Yorkers.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
First off... whining about Moveon.org and ACT and the various new progressive think tanks is silly.
Whining about a single liberal billionaire is equally silly.
The progressive movement is moving beyond the confines of the party and it's base supporters. Civil Rights groups, Unions, Environmentalists... and the party has little to do with it.
What's so offensive about a centrist progressive radio netowork and programming?
Murdoch has the 4th largest media conglomerate in the world. And it's a mighty political machine too.
Now... on to the boat.
He wasn't going to just have a party or two there... he thought it would be a great place for all the lobbyists and republican politicians to schmooze away from prying eyes. A former staffer of his is the Advocate for the Cruise line... Hey... I wanted DeLay to have his luxury accommodations... would be a great snub to rile up the New Yorkers.
Actually there is nothing wrong with it, until it is done by Republicans apparently and then it is wrong, biased, hateful, etc.
I remember Newt getting slammed by Dems with ethics complaints regarding a book deal and his course "To Renew America." Then Hillary grabs 8 million but of course that isn't influence peddling. The Dems grab 15 million but of course that isn't "soft money" or "corrupting."
As for the boat, I hate to break this to you, but there is plenty of schoozing regardless of whether there is a boat or not. I bet the idea was killed in part because the boat is simply too small. Even holding 2,000+ there are a lot of tag-a-longs on these events. The smoozing already takes place away from prying eyes for both parties. You think the NEA or NOW invites the media in for their meet and greets between the candidates and the delegates? Please...take your naivity and double standards and get a clue.
Nick
How dare she take an advance for a book that's sold!
It's in its second printing.
I know Rush can't believe it... but it sold... ALOT.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Newt got smashed because what he was doing was exactly what former Speaker Jim Wright had done -- signed a book deal with terms that raised questions of propriety. It was an issue of hypocrisy -- Newt led the brigade that forced Wright to resign due to the book deal.
Wright's book deal didn't raise "questions." It was outright wrong and would have been found so if the charges were not dismissed via his resignation. His "royalty" rate was 55% and it was found that he was basically selling the book as a form of bribery. Thus you don't have to give me a $50,000 bribe, you just have to go buy X number of my books that nets me $50,000.
Likewise you neglect to mention that Gingrich, admittedly due to pressure, did not take the advance. Clinton did.
So, just to be clear, Republicans called bad, don't take the money. Democrats call bad, take the money and smile.
Because of the concern regarding advances and legislative business, the house passed an ethics rule against book advances. The senate hasn't and Hillary has her 8 million toward her house on the hill where she can talk about those evil, rich special interests without including herself.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Isn't Hillary's book still on the Bestseller list?
How dare she take an advance for a book that's sold!
It's in its second printing.
I know Rush can't believe it... but it sold... ALOT.
Obviously you don't understand the concept of advance. She would have been paid the same amount in royalties for the number of books sold. She just got it before the sales, in a lump sum, that she needed to buy the house she wanted, while claiming no influence peddling, from Viacom, a company that makes Murdock look small.
It did move over a million copies, but then they have promoted the hell out of it, and printed those million as part of the first run. Honestly how many authors get a million book first run?
As for how it is doing now, it is at number 35. Well below Stone Cold Steve Austin's latest book.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It did move over a million copies, but then they have promoted the hell out of it, and printed those million as part of the first run. Honestly how many authors get a million book first run?
As for how it is doing now, it is at number 35. Well below Stone Cold Steve Austin's latest book.
Nick
The book sold over one million copies in its first month alone. Did Stone Cold Steve Austin do that well?
Originally posted by trumptman
What the hell do you call taking 15 million from ONE MAN.
Building a pretty well-financed organization. This is nothing new for Republicans because they already have a bunch of well-financed organizations themselves- and yes- they receive large donations from private individuals as well. Richard Mellon Scaife or that guy who owns the Washington Times ring a bell? I don't think there's anything wrong with that?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The book sold over one million copies in its first month alone. Did Stone Cold Steve Austin do that well?
Actually he probably did. We could debate which our country is more likely to buy, a book from Stone Cold or from Hillary Clinton, but in the end we would all just end up depressed. I actually have no idea how many books Austin has sold, but I know the WWE sells lots of stuff, not to me, but to plenty of kids I teach.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Building a pretty well-financed organization. This is nothing new for Republicans because they already have a bunch of well-financed organizations themselves- and yes- they receive large donations from private individuals as well. Richard Mellon Scaife or that guy who owns the Washington Times ring a bell? I don't think there's anything wrong with that?
You miss the point. When Republicans do it, Democrats call it wrong. When Democrats do it Democrats call it..... well... I'm waiting...
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You miss the point. When Republicans do it, Democrats call it wrong. When Democrats do it Democrats call it..... well... I'm waiting...
Nick
How about a concrete example of what you're talking about?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
How about a concrete example of what you're talking about?
I think the Hillary example was pretty concrete.
How about complaining about big media conglomerates, which Dean mentioned he would bust up by the way, and the Republican "talk radio echo chamber" while preparing to buy their own radio stations?
Honestly it sounds like... well it's wrong, until we can do it too.
I think the example with Soros is pretty concrete too. Why circumvent the soft money prohibition which they declared corrupting and made illegal? They have to in part because Republicans have more small donors (regardless of Democratic contentions), the small donors give an larger average donation and thus they have a lot more hard money. However that is the process the Dems claimed they wanted. The little guy giving little donations. They even helped pass the legislation and then they go around it with 15 million dollar donations.
Understand I don't personally care that they start these outside groups. I personally contend that money wants to come into politics and when you seek to limit it, all you do is feed the lawyers as they find ways to bend the rules. However my own personal view is no limits, full disclosure. Thus I'm not being hypocritical. It is however hypocritical to claim that you want category limits, contribution limits and campaign limits and then toss them all aside.
Nick