The Koch cash machine? Compared to what...the Soros cash machine?dbackjon wrote:Wow - you guys are really running scared of Hillary. The Koch cash machine is working overtime planting these stories...
I smell desperation.
Baldy wrote:The Koch cash machine? Compared to what...the Soros cash machine?dbackjon wrote:Wow - you guys are really running scared of Hillary. The Koch cash machine is working overtime planting these stories...
I smell desperation.
You're smelling your own farts, jon.
He does, and so much more.dbackjon wrote:Baldy wrote: The Koch cash machine? Compared to what...the Soros cash machine?
You're smelling your own farts, jon.
Dems only wish Soros spent that kind of money.
I hope I am the blondeChizzang wrote:Dback and Baldy on who's a bigger meanie
I invite you to start a, "Koch Cash Bribery" thread.dbackjon wrote:Wow - you guys are really running scared of Hillary. The Koch cash machine is working overtime planting these stories...
I smell desperation.
You really believe that?travelinman67 wrote:I invite you to start a, "Koch Cash Bribery" thread.dbackjon wrote:Wow - you guys are really running scared of Hillary. The Koch cash machine is working overtime planting these stories...
I smell desperation.
We could use an epic Andyanchor thread.
You won't...because the Koch brothers are saints in comparison to the Clintons.
Fucking coward.dbackjon wrote:You really believe that?travelinman67 wrote:
I invite you to start a, "Koch Cash Bribery" thread.
We could use an epic Andyanchor thread.
You won't...because the Koch brothers are saints in comparison to the Clintons.
travelinman67 wrote:Fucking coward.dbackjon wrote:
You really believe that?
Baldy wrote:He does, and so much more.dbackjon wrote:
Dems only wish Soros spent that kind of money.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view ... sp?id=1237
Im not saying this doesnt happen everywhere, every dayChizzang wrote:CID1990 wrote:
it is pretty brazen and out in the open
i think very soon we will again be contemplating what the definition of the word "is" is
Like I already said:
These career system abusers (and we've got a political system full of 'em)
Need to just run the appointment circuit and work the hidden hand method
When they step into the light
they risk serious exposure and disgrace
CID1990 wrote:Im not saying this doesnt happen everywhere, every dayChizzang wrote:
Like I already said:
These career system abusers (and we've got a political system full of 'em)
Need to just run the appointment circuit and work the hidden hand method
When they step into the light
they risk serious exposure and disgrace
but it is a science with the Clintons- Hillary cashed in on her tenure as SecState - someone in a position to shape foreign policy - the country's top diplomat- accepting money from foreign governments.... for what charity? to channel money to Haiti they could have just directly given themselves?
there's strong evidence that several cash contributions came just prior to policy decisions that directly (and benevolently) affected the donor countries
"everybody does it" is weak sauce and definitely doesnt mean we shouldnt call these people out
Bush took a lot of heat for his family's cordial relationship with the Saudi royal family- and it certainly was worth examination- Im more frustrated with the people who were at the tip of that spear now defending another pol who appears to be even more corrupt by a mile
but yeah- thanks for clarifying for me that everybody does it. very illuminating
i actually dont have a boner for herChizzang wrote:CID1990 wrote:
Im not saying this doesnt happen everywhere, every day
but it is a science with the Clintons- Hillary cashed in on her tenure as SecState - someone in a position to shape foreign policy - the country's top diplomat- accepting money from foreign governments.... for what charity? to channel money to Haiti they could have just directly given themselves?
there's strong evidence that several cash contributions came just prior to policy decisions that directly (and benevolently) affected the donor countries
"everybody does it" is weak sauce and definitely doesnt mean we shouldnt call these people out
Bush took a lot of heat for his family's cordial relationship with the Saudi royal family- and it certainly was worth examination- Im more frustrated with the people who were at the tip of that spear now defending another pol who appears to be even more corrupt by a mile
but yeah- thanks for clarifying for me that everybody does it. very illuminating
Hey its your boner - you can do with it whatever you want (shine that sucker up)
Pardon me if I'm not shocked and appalled at the present situation
But I do GET IT
The situation is desperate
If she manages to skirt all of her scandals and side step the avalanche
she waltz's into the White House
CID1990 wrote:i actually dont have a boner for herChizzang wrote:
Hey its your boner - you can do with it whatever you want (shine that sucker up)
Pardon me if I'm not shocked and appalled at the present situation
But I do GET IT
The situation is desperate
If she manages to skirt all of her scandals and side step the avalanche
she waltz's into the White House
I have a boner for the fact that fifty percent of this country would vote for Pol Pot if he had a D or an R after his name
in a sane world Clinton doesnt poll above 5%
I 100% agree with you thenation.comdbackjon wrote:
$ amount?
Koch's in 2012 alone spent over $400 Million.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178743/ko ... s-combined" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So, not even close.
THIS!CID1990 wrote:i actually dont have a boner for herChizzang wrote:
Hey its your boner - you can do with it whatever you want (shine that sucker up)
Pardon me if I'm not shocked and appalled at the present situation
But I do GET IT
The situation is desperate
If she manages to skirt all of her scandals and side step the avalanche
she waltz's into the White House
I have a boner for the fact that fifty percent of this country would vote for Pol Pot if he had a D or an R after his name
in a sane world Clinton doesnt poll above 5%
)They make it clear that turning away from Bill Clinton's cherished demographic of southern white moderates, and toward the Obama base of "young, nonwhite and female voters," is something they're only doing with extreme reluctance.
They describe rhetoric for the young-female-nonwhite coalition as "narrow," while a Bill Clinton-style turn toward the red states would be a "broader" strategy that would "lift the party with her."
In the Times piece, this line is followed by a slew of quotes from establishment Dems about the perils of turning toward the base. And it's capped by an on-the-record quote from Mook, Hillary's current campaign manager, who is described as "unmoved" by such concerns:
"I think everybody understands how tough it's going to be next year if we get through the primary… So I'm not concerned about hand-wringing on the strategy."
In other words: "We hate doing this, but it's the only way to win. Bear with us."
As political messaging goes, it's a remarkably perverse way to kick off a campaign. It's like going on a date and announcing before the appetizers arrive that the only reason you're here is that the person you really wanted to go out with turned you down.
As in: "Please don't think I really like you. It's just that going out with you is the only way I'm going to get laid."
The Clintons have long been masters of this kind of rhetoric, only in the other direction. The Democratic Party spent much of the nineties and 2000s reassuring their base through similar leaks and off-the-record/background comments.
The whispers back then told us that Third Way Democrats like the Clintons or Al Gore were really raging liberal pacifists at heart, and only voted for things like the Iraq War or the Patriot Act or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because they needed to head rightward to win elections and keep the big bad evil Republicans at bay.
What they're saying now is the opposite. The country, they say, has become so polarized that they need to head left and "narrowly" pick sides, instead of "broadly" hedging in order to win….
In fact, in a just world, this latest decision to overcome voter indifference by putting on an Elizabeth Warren mask through the primary season would be rewarded by even stiffer slides down the polls. Even hardcore progressives would probably respect her more if she stuck to the eely faux-center the Third Way Dems have been staking out since the late Eighties.
But if history is any guide, that won't happen. The guess here is that Hillary and Democrats have run the numbers. They'll shake a few fists at The Man on the campaign trail, just enough to sneak by on poll day. Then, once in office, they'll revert back in office to being the shameless policy sellouts they've always been.
kalm wrote:Look out! Hilary is veering toward the left!!!
(Baldy, Ivy, and Cid, please note the source. You're welcome!
They make it clear that turning away from Bill Clinton's cherished demographic of southern white moderates, and toward the Obama base of "young, nonwhite and female voters," is something they're only doing with extreme reluctance.
They describe rhetoric for the young-female-nonwhite coalition as "narrow," while a Bill Clinton-style turn toward the red states would be a "broader" strategy that would "lift the party with her."
In the Times piece, this line is followed by a slew of quotes from establishment Dems about the perils of turning toward the base. And it's capped by an on-the-record quote from Mook, Hillary's current campaign manager, who is described as "unmoved" by such concerns:
"I think everybody understands how tough it's going to be next year if we get through the primary… So I'm not concerned about hand-wringing on the strategy."
In other words: "We hate doing this, but it's the only way to win. Bear with us."
As political messaging goes, it's a remarkably perverse way to kick off a campaign. It's like going on a date and announcing before the appetizers arrive that the only reason you're here is that the person you really wanted to go out with turned you down.
As in: "Please don't think I really like you. It's just that going out with you is the only way I'm going to get laid."
The Clintons have long been masters of this kind of rhetoric, only in the other direction. The Democratic Party spent much of the nineties and 2000s reassuring their base through similar leaks and off-the-record/background comments.
The whispers back then told us that Third Way Democrats like the Clintons or Al Gore were really raging liberal pacifists at heart, and only voted for things like the Iraq War or the Patriot Act or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because they needed to head rightward to win elections and keep the big bad evil Republicans at bay.
What they're saying now is the opposite. The country, they say, has become so polarized that they need to head left and "narrowly" pick sides, instead of "broadly" hedging in order to win….
In fact, in a just world, this latest decision to overcome voter indifference by putting on an Elizabeth Warren mask through the primary season would be rewarded by even stiffer slides down the polls. Even hardcore progressives would probably respect her more if she stuck to the eely faux-center the Third Way Dems have been staking out since the late Eighties.
But if history is any guide, that won't happen. The guess here is that Hillary and Democrats have run the numbers. They'll shake a few fists at The Man on the campaign trail, just enough to sneak by on poll day. Then, once in office, they'll revert back in office to being the shameless policy sellouts they've always been.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3dVh2x2en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
I don't sense much of a groundswell for that "broad left-right coalition to be built" along Warren-Sanders lines. Do you?It plays well in the coffee klatches in the NE and on the extreme coast, but once their ideas hit the mainstream, people would run away like their hair was on fire.Ivytalk wrote:kalm wrote:Look out! Hilary is veering toward the left!!!
(Baldy, Ivy, and Cid, please note the source. You're welcome!
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3dVh2x2en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
klam, I actually read the whole piece, and Brother Taibbi sounds downright depressed.
Too much money involved for a strong coalition with any staying power unless the shit really hits the fan. Too bad, because there are really are a few sincere players from both sides that recognize the cronyism.Ivytalk wrote:kalm wrote:Look out! Hilary is veering toward the left!!!
(Baldy, Ivy, and Cid, please note the source. You're welcome!
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3dVh2x2en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
klam, I actually read the whole piece, and Brother Taibbi sounds downright depressed.
WWASD?kalm wrote:Too much money involved for a strong coalition with any staying power unless the shit really hits the fan. Too bad, because there are really are a few sincere players from both sides that recognize the cronyism.Ivytalk wrote:
klam, I actually read the whole piece, and Brother Taibbi sounds downright depressed.
Vote Gary Johnston.travelinman67 wrote:WWASD?kalm wrote:
Too much money involved for a strong coalition with any staying power unless the shit really hits the fan. Too bad, because there are really are a few sincere players from both sides that recognize the cronyism.
- Spoiler: show
Who?kalm wrote:Vote Gary Johnston.
