Rand Paul... accuses Stephanopoulos of harboring a “conflict of interest.” But donating money to a charitable foundation is not an interest. His money is gone regardless of what happens to Clinton’s presidential campaign.... In the absence of a material conflict, is there some symbolic conflict? It is hard to imagine what.... Stephanopoulos’s defense — that he just wanted to donate to the Foundation’s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation — seems 100 percent persuasive....I've always assumed Stephanopoulos is biased toward the Clintons. Why should I care about his charitable contributions? Failed disclosure? Bleh. The Foundation is in all sorts of trouble? George isn't linked to that. The Republicans shouldn't accept him as a debate moderator. That was already true. This new thing? I don't see what it adds to the already-existing disqualification.
The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple does make an argument, but not much of one. “The problem with Stephanopoulos’s donations to the Clinton Foundation is that it gives him a stake — even if it’s a small one — in the operations and success of the charity,” he writes, “Like any donor, Stephanopoulos wants his money put to good use and, all else being equal, wants the foundation to prosper as it invests his money in good works.” But how does this bias Stephanopoulos’s campaign coverage?...
May 15, 2015
"George Stephanopoulos Gave to the Clinton Foundation. So What?"
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking, and I tend to not agree with Jonathan Chait. He says:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
213 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 213 of 213Gabriel said...
@ARM: This is what you said then:
You continue to fail to grasp the concept of mockery. I will explain. I applied the same usage of Fascist to right-wingers that they routinely use to describe the left. Do you understand now?
@ARM: I applied the same usage of Fascist to right-wingers that they routinely use to describe the left.
No you didn't. Instead of talking about whether expressly supporting the use of armed force to suppress dissent was 'fascist', you accused people of hating Jews.
Let me quote you again:I do it knowing that I am not one of the jack-booted fascists who sent millions of people to incarceration because of misplaced feelings of moral superiority, the same feelings that led to the Jews being incinerated.
Why can't Jews get elected to congress from red states? Too many fascists.
Are you seriously arguing that people on this forum don't continually claim that the left hates Jews? Is this your argument? Good luck with that.
It would be more helpful to your argument if you explained which corporations. There are literqlly thousands of corporations including municipalities. The vast majority of them have no political influence. So when you say corporations are to blame you paint with too broad of a brush.
Same goes for Wall Street. Wall street comprises a lot of different enterprises.
The resident Leftists feel compelled to defend the Leftists in the press. The cruelly neutral blogger pretends everybody knows about press bias, while the Leftists pretend that bias does not exist.
This is how propaganda happens.
I subscribe to the WSJ. How, exactly, is that pervasive left wing bias playing out in this paper?
A non sequitur says what?
R&B's: "Hatred of the very civilization that was borne out of the Greek political systems of antiquity is what you fascists are all about."
LOL
"Hey Hey Ho Ho Western Civ has got to go!" said the entire left.....
AReasonableMeltdown: "I subscribe to the WSJ. How, exactly, is that pervasive left wing bias playing out in this paper?"
Through the new pages as opposed to the business reports.
As has been well known for about 30 years.
You could just have easily asked "gee, I wonder if Al Hunt is a liberal?".
Again, thanks for playing. I'm sure we could get you some parting gifts if we looked hard enough.
Perhaps an all expense paid reunion trip to Cuba for your and VB pals?
The problem with rigid ideologues is that no one is ever pure enough for them. Makes them ineffective politically.
The pathetic thing is the notion -- probably subscribed to by Stephanopoulos himself -- that his five-figure cash contributions might actually be something that Bill & Hill would appreciate.
That's silly.
They appreciate the weekly verbal blow-jobs he gives them every Sunday morning. That's his value to them.
The rest, including Georgie's cash, is nothing more than a token of his unquestioning, reflexive obeisance, sort of like saying, "Mr. President" or standing when they come in the room. They don't need it. They don't notice it when they get it. They'd notice its absence, not because they would miss or particularly need these particular few tens of thousands of dollars in their tsunami of booty, but because they'd be damned highly offended if he denied it to them.
It's like the way my dog licks my foot -- not because it tastes good, but because he desperately wants to avoid my displeasure.
AReasonableMan said...
The problem with rigid ideologues is that no one is ever pure enough for them. Makes them ineffective politically.
Again with the irony.
Post a Comment