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?...
१५ मे, २०१५
"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:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१३ टिप्पण्या:
213 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Didn't ABC fire Geraldo Rivera some time back over much less?
It's not really that it's something new about ol Georgie. It's more like the straw that broke the camel's back.
It was insane for conservatives to allow a debate moderated by Gwen Ifill, too, but it happened. Candy Crowley, same-o. The GOP just doesn't have great media instincts. Had these revelations not come out, I'm sure George would still be on the debate calendar.
It turns out quite a few "unbiased" journalists donated or were involved with the Clinton Foundation.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFE5qHZWoAER64x.png
The lack of interest in Bill's private parties with a convicted pedophile and Hillary's "work" contact with big-ticket donors suddenly becomes clearer.
@Jason, no, he was fired for complaining when ABC pulled a 20/20 report that discussed the relationship between Marilyn Monroe and JFK.
The level of obtuseness in Althouse's post on this subject is amazing.
Yes, he has always been a Clinton partisan hack. That's not in dispute.
What is driving this particular story is that he was aggressively interviewing the author of the recent book detailing how the Clinton Foundation is a big slush fund for payoff from foreign governments, and ABC either didn't know or didn't care that he had himself donated 150% of the median family income in this country to that very same Foundation in just the last three years.
And then he lied about it when the information became public. Which ABC also thinks is no big deal.
This is ultimately about ABC News and not George S., himself.
The Republicans shouldn't accept him as a debate moderator. That was already true.
It's not just debate. He has the ability to set the tone for political coverage. That's his career. That's his job.
Remember when he planted the seed the Republicans might, just might- want to ban birth control?
What is driving this particular story is that he was aggressively interviewing the author of the recent book detailing how the Clinton Foundation is a big slush fund for payoff from foreign governments, and ABC either didn't know or didn't care that he had himself donated 150% of the median family income in this country to that very same Foundation in just the last three years.
And this.
Sure..he's always been a hack..but this instance has been pursued with enough vigor to make him confront it..in his trasparently defensive apology. He doesn't wear this well at all. That's good.
@Althouse, you're right but you're wrong. Right in that no knowledgeable person could doubt that Stephanopoulos is, as he always has been, a cog in the Clinton machine. Wrong in that absent this "scandal" it is difficult for the low-information voter to understand why Stephanopoulos is objectionable to Republicans.
Think of it as sending Al Capone to Alcatraz over tax fraud.
Looks to me as though the Clintons used George Stephanopoulos to attack Clinton Cash author Peter Schweitzer. Did you see that interview and how Stephanopoulos grilled Schweitzer on the charity? Without disclosing a donation most Americans find substantial? Caesar's Wife.
I did not believe for even a nanosecond that Stephanopoulos donated out of the good of his heart. Then again, I don't believe anyone running or donating to the Clinton Foundation have charity in their hearts.
At the very least Stephanopoulos should have disclosed not only his donation to the Clinton Foundation but his participation in Clinton Global Initiative events as a panelist and as a speaker when he aggressively interviewed Peter Schweizer—the author of Clinton Cash —on his Sunday morning show.
Stephanopoulos is clearly biased and compromised as an interviewer of Schweizer.
A Democratic Party operative masquerading as a newsman gives kickbacks to the Democrat who made his $8 million/year salary possible. It's a story as old as ... Wisconsin government unions.
Amazingly, in that same Schweitzer interview, Stephanopoulos accused Schweitzer of being a biased Republican political hack because he once worked for 4 months as a speechwriter for President Bush. Full disclosure George! How many years did you work for Bill Clinton and aren' you still a dedicated political hack for the Democrats?
Given the recent revelations that something like only 15% of Clinton Foundation donations actually go to "good works," I have two questions. Has George S. donated comparable sums to other less obviously political AIDS prevention and deforestation organizations? If not, then of all the charitable opportunities available, why this one?
It's because he had a specific conflict of interest in the specific interview he was doing which he did not disclose.
It would have been very, very easy for him to have said something like, "I myself have donated to this charity and so I am surprised by these allegations" or some such.
The "conflict of interest" isn't that George would like the Clinton Foundation to succeed: It's that he wants Hillary! to succeed in her effort to become president. So he uses his position as an ostensible "newsman" to undermine charges of misconduct by Hillary!
"Given the recent revelations that something like only 15% of Clinton Foundation donations actually go to "good works," "
Yeah, it wasn't good works George S. was after.
"trumpetdaddy said...
The level of obtuseness in Althouse's post on this subject is amazing.
Yes, he has always been a Clinton partisan hack. That's not in dispute.
What is driving this particular story is that he was aggressively interviewing the author of the recent book detailing how the Clinton Foundation is a big slush fund for payoff from foreign governments, and ABC either didn't know or didn't care that he had himself donated 150% of the median family income in this country to that very same Foundation in just the last three years.
And then he lied about it when the information became public. Which ABC also thinks is no big deal. "
This. A thousand times this.
CWJ, Iowahawk explains the choice of this foundation in this way:
Ford Foundation: gives away Henry Ford's money.
Gates Foundation: gives away Bill Gates' money.
Clinton Foundation: gives Clintons money.
The Republicans shouldn't accept him as a debate moderator. That was already true.
Why on Earth shouldn't they? Either the Republican candidate can cope with a hostile moderator or not. If not, it's either because he's unfit for the office -- I don't imagine Vladimir Putin is fair in his angling for moral advantage when speaking from the international bully pulpit, nor can the President reasonably expect the Iranian press to be fair in how it reports his appeals to the Iranian people for sweet reason and justice -- or it's because it is impossible for anyone to cope with a hostile moderator.
If it's not possible for anyone to cope with a hostile moderator, then the Republicans should not agree to a moderator at all, or perhaps should not agree to debates at all.
But the proposition that we need to find an angel to moderate with pure disinterested objectivity is the kind of narcissist bullshit promulgated by our media mavens, who have apparently convinced quite a lot of otherwise sensible people that truth can only come from out of the mouths of people with certain certified holy characters, and anyone without a certified character is some kind of reprobate to whom you should never pay the slightest attention.
I can understand why they, aspiring to be priests in the temple of Truth, should push that line of thought. Why anyone else who considers himself a free man should accept is is baffling.
If the Republicans need a "fair" moderator to win the election, either their man is incompetent or the voters are idiots and the republic a farce.*
-----
* Personally, I think the voters are idiots and the republic is a farce. I just wanted to point out to others still harboring delusions the violent logical contradiction between faith in republicanism on the one hand, and on the other hand belief that the system can only work if there is a handful of powerful yet luckily wholly disinterested angels to oversee its elections.
Able to think through the fascinating poker detail in a *knockout* tournament--even if you win the hand the guy with more money takes the knockout cash, half (usually) the total purse but paid only and always when a player gets eliminated--Stephie is as corrupt as I've been saying for years now.
"he was aggressively interviewing the author of the recent book detailing how the Clinton Foundation is a big slush fund for payoff from foreign governments"
Yup. Althouse missed this one big time. Maybe she hasn't read the book.
@Carl Pham: the proposition that we need to find an angel to moderate with pure disinterested objectivity...
There's a lot of ground between "pure disinterested objectivity" and "a hack who worked for the candidate's husband and gave them money", which could be explored before abandoning the idea of fair moderation as preposterous.
But it wouldn't matter if moderators stuck to things like enforcing time limits, instead of doing instant "fact checks" which are bogus, or asking one candidate if they've stopped beating their wife yet whilst asking the other how difficult they find it to share the debate with someone who beats his wife.
Brian Williams was right there when George signed the check..tried to stop him.
"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...."
Chait is not a serious person.
When you give money to the Clinton foundation, you are not giving it to charity, you are giving money to its board, who will determine how the money is spent. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton are both on the board of the Clinton foundation.
I am disgusted with myself for liking Garth Brooks "Friends in Low Places."
Cunt Bitch Brooks can't get along, so that nagging cunt voice in his head decides to fuck up some ex'es of his WEDDING so as to really make his shittiness smell as foul as he can.
Democrat.
I was a child.
"So what" is the appropriate reaction for someone who doesn't think ABC has any credibility at all--and even that person should still be a little shocked at the sheer brazenness of Stephanopoulos' disregard for journalistic ethics (whatever those are worth). To accuse the Clinton Cash author of bias because that author briefly worked for a Bush and not only gloss over the fact that Steph. is only where he is today because he was a loyal Clinton worker BUT ALSO to omit the interesting fact that Steph. was himself a donor to the VERY CHARITY UNDER DISCUSSION...it's a little more than even the usual level of unstated bias, don't you think? It tarnishes the network, and in not punishing the behavior and lack of professional regard the network damages itself.
I am still me.
There were plenty of other ways GS could have given money to support any cause he chose. Giving instead to the Clinton Foundation is a way of buying access and good will from a future administration. The CF is not a real charity; it is an organization devoted to publicizing the Clintons and keeping their political staff on payroll between elections. How dumb do they think we are?
Quid pro quo Ann, what did old Stephanopoulos get for that $75 grand (that we know of) he gave.
You really think he just gave it to them out of the goodness of his heart?
And Bill gave it to Monica out of the goodness of his heart?
The donation is the required kiss up. No donation, no access, it's that simple. George does not want to go to the end of the line. He wants his access.
Somewhere there is a list of those who gave and those who did not, coded for politics. Hillary and Bill, or their handlers, see that list. Being on that list matters.
It's the myth of objective journalism that supports the political viability of the soap opera media.
The audience is stroked into thinking they're thinking important thoughts, and then they vote that way.
Stephanopoulos is free riding on it.
The donation doesn't matter. It's just a symptom of the business arrangement between media ratings and democrat voters.
It's an act of fealty, a little donation to the Godfather.
The is no specific quid pro. But either you are in the club or you are not. George needs to be in the club. He will need his Godfather some day.
It is possible that it was his own money Stephanopolous gave the Clinton foundation. If so it would be to get back in Hillary!'s good graces after that book he wrote; a kow-tow to get access now and maybe back to the White House if she is elected.
Or it may just be a "pass through" from ABC. As has been commented, neither has any credibility as news disseminators.
I watched the Schweitzer interview and blogged about it. I think Stephapoulos's bias was very obvious and knowing one more reason for it wouldn't have mattered much. Schweitzer knew what he was in for and chose it and came off looking great, I think. He never got ruffled and used the confrontation to his advantage. Sure, take another slam at Steffy, but I am totally bored by this.
Yours in cruel neutrality,
The Moderate Voter
He has been a Clinton acolyte pretending to be a journalist for years. He let his guard down and gave the right a chance to get him, and so they will. Who cares if he coulda, woulda, shoulda been a good journalist. It doesn't matter, would the left care in comparable circumstances?
I think some people are hot to ruin a man, and I don't have that taste of blood. S is what he always was.
Althouse, still missing the point. It isn't about George S.
It's about ABC News.
But, "the moderate voter" always luxuriates in missing the point. They are positively ebullient in their obtuseness. They slap themselves on the back for it constantly.
I'm not gonna shit upon idea's a man I respect concocts, but by God let's start being more like William Frank Buckley Junior, aka WFB.
To those who know, the name says it all.
What that "all" entails is research you've subsumed to unresearch.
"Pay off the mafia? What are you talking about?. I just gave a bundle of cash to the Italian American League, that's all."
All dishonest politicians have a problem with laundering cash they get in return for favors. Remember Obama and his real estate deal with tony Rezko? The Chicago landlord/investor that Obama and Jerrette funneled money to?
The Clintons seem to have perfected the legal pay off scam. Putin could learn a lesson from Bill and Hillary. Poor Putin will have to die in office or interpol will grab him.
I occasionally question AA's faux surprise or indignation about the latest predictably transparent Prog maneuver, so perhaps I should give credit for cynical so-what acceptance of this sleaze ball and his sleaze.
But I confess that this is just a bit much even for a jaded Prog spotter. I mean, questioning an author's bias while not disclosing your own? It's a tad brazen.
In other lines of work, failure to disclose a material conflict of interest could get you fired, or worse. I realize the actual work here is propaganda, but still.
"I don't see what it adds to the already existing disqualifications."
Well said. And I agree. The thing is, how many people of power and influence, and how many American media moguls, have been overlooking all of those "already existing disqualifications"?
I like stories like this, when they crystallize media bias in a way that cannot be overlooked.
@Althouse, you may be a cruelly neutral voter, but you are not a low information voter. Please reread my comment of 5:29. I'll bet if you took the average voter walking down the street they wouldn't even know that Stephanopoulos had been a Clinton staffer. That was, what, 15 years ago? Do you think anybody besides you, Meade, and your regular commentators remember that far back?
Frankly I'd be much more concerned about journalistic integrity if the $75,000 went in the other direction, from the Clinton Foundation to him. But I'll take what I can get.
Ann Althouse said...I think Stephapoulos's bias was very obvious and knowing one more reason for it wouldn't have mattered much.
Sure, but do you hold ABC News to any kind of standard at all? The "just one more reason" makes the actual hypocrisy of George S's pose much worse, does it not? If he's supposed to be a political analyst giving the Left side, fine. But ABC News puts him up there as a journalist, not a partisan. Do you not think this makes ABC look bad/worse, especially since they don't seem to be punishing this "honest oversight" in any way?
"S is what he always was."
True. This story is just more evidence of the corruption of the Clintons, who are pretending to be something high and noble. S. is just being a journalist with a left sided point of view. Another tree in the forest. But the Clintons are stripping bark from all the trees.
More proof? WSJ tonight reports that the Clintons' income from speeches since January 2014 is $25 million.
Put that in your Citizens United pipe and smoke it.
Look, ABC News is part of the Media and the Media is strongly biased, sure. But in this case one of their (biased) journalists went over the top and doubled down on bias--both for a political party and for an individual/cause/organization with which he was personally involved! Would it have bothered you if it was a for-profit company? If a news host attacked a guest who wrote a book about climate change and it turned our that host had donated $75k to the Mark Steyn legal defense fund, would you say "so what?"
He is convicted by his own words:
“This is a tough one because when you actually look closely at it — [Schweizer] even says, there’s no evidence of any direct action taken on behalf of the donors.But everybody also knows when those donors give that money to President Clinton or someone, they get a picture with him: There’s a hope that that’s going to lead to something and that’s what you have to be careful of.”
expectations of quid f'ing quo
Stephanopoulos himself said on the Daily that "donors ‘hope’ for benefits.
Ok, then. It's ok to make an access lay away, should Clinton win, the speculation is what could Stephanopoulos expect for his access?
George did not make a contribution. He paid dues.
Didn't the Clintons sell the Lincoln bedroom?
As an aside, Wemple also covers how ABC News screwed the reporter who actually uncovered the story out of the scoop in what is apparently a pretty bad journalistic ethical breach of its own. That's a little inside-baseball for the Moderate Voter, maybe, but the upshot is that even in responding to an accusation of the appearance of bias (or corruption) ABC News can't act fairly towards the non-Left.
Ann,
I think the failure to disclose his financial tie is the problem. I don't think it is a big deal other than it clearly disqualifies him from moderating political debates and he should have mentioned it prior to the Scweitzer interview.
The problem lies in this falsehood that the Clinton Foundation is a charity.
In the Schweitzer interview Georgie's vocab seemed pretty tight with the Clinton denial narrative, but I'm sure he came to those terms on his own. Yeah right.
Why should you care? Because these are the same hypocrites who don't want US to be able to donate to organizations...
The Clinton Foundation is 15% of a charity.
Yes, I could go cynical about this and out cynic everyone. This as an ending was inevitable. I think the mistake ABC made was in hiring Steffi to begin with; Steffi was a smoother and more sophisticated version of an old fashioned political hack. Say, Larry O'Donnell or Bobby Baker. He was certainly not a newsman. That ABC hired him as a newsman is only one of many symptoms of dry rot in our political establishment. Yes, by all means fire him and then hire Kim Kardashian and Bruce Jenner to do the news! Now that would be a ratings killer combination.
A charity navigator search returns this...
We don't evaluate Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Why not? We have determined that this charity's atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.
I've been impressed with Wemple lately. He's a Lefty, but one of the old-fashioned kind who believes the government should work for the people, and not the other way around.
They are probably setting up a cage full of rats for him Room 101 right now.
It's an insult to our intelligence.
So long as we all agree Sunday morning talk shows are leftist propoganda and nothing that resembles journalism I'm fine with it. Otherwise there's still ground to cover...
Guidestar.org is helpful. Here are their last few 990s (if you can’t fetch immediately, you can register an email address and a login, and get them from there).
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/311/580/2012-311580204-09d3e966-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2011/311/580/2011-311580204-08d3f620-9.pdf
Their 990 (tax return for a non-profit) declares that the foundation “works to strengthen the capacity of people in the U.S. and throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.”
Wow. Sure sounds like prog-speak. You’d think any effort worthy of a presidential endorsement would promote everyone's independence and freedom, not declare handouts for everyone. And it gets worse from there. It reads like "we'll spend it anyway we d@mn well please.. but trust us."
Ann, the Clinton Foundation gives back out less than 10% of their donations received. They are so corrupt no charity watchdog organization will certify them. If Stephanopolous, who has been a Clinton lackey since their first WH campaign, says he donated for charitable reasons he's a liar and think's you're an idiot. And if you accept that explanation...
Good old George has an obvious conflict of interest.
In his mind he is a serious journalist and political commentator. And so it is not in his interest to be portrayed as bumbling fool who unwittingly contributes large amounts of money to a "slush fund" that is funded by foreign governments in return for political favors. In other words, he doesn't want to be exposed of as simple-minded mark.
>>Yours in cruel neutrality,
Neutrality in the face of flagrant corruption equals acceptance.
DanTheMan said...
>>Yours in cruel neutrality,
Neutrality in the face of flagrant corruption equals acceptance..
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Burke
The constitution forbids the federal governments and the states from handing out titles of nobility.
A title of nobility is more than just the right the call yourself "lord so and-so." There were legal ramifications, like the old "jury of your peers" mumbo-jumbo that few Americans understand.
If I was still a poli-sci student I could get an interesting paper out of drawing the parallels between a title of nobility and personal control of a non-profit. The Clintons (and some other politicians) are both private individuals and legal political corporations.
It is difficult to find out how the Clinton Foundation is governed -- who determines who is on its board -- but signs point to bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton making all hiring and firing decisions.
Money isn't free speech!
I think some people are hot to ruin a man, and I don't have that taste of blood.
What? Getting squeamish now? He's just a splooge stooge.
S is what he always was.
However, he and ABC were pretending he wasn't.
Rae said...
The Clinton Foundation is 15% of a charity.
Not that I have a dog in this fight, but this is from the Clinton foundations 2013 Annual Report.
2013 EXPENDITURES
Program 88.4%
Management and General 7%
Fundraising 4.5%
Provision for Uncollectible Pledges 0.1%
They socked away about 1/3 of their income, but most Foundations create a cash cushion or endowment to deal with the ups and downs of giving/grants.
Terry said...
It is difficult to find out how the Clinton Foundation is governed -- who determines who is on its board -- but signs point to bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton making all hiring and firing decisions.
The board members are listed in the annual report with their terms.
It is called the Clinton Foundation, so it is not entirely surprising that the Clintons run it. If it was called Terry's Foundation I suspect you would want a significant say in how things were run.
Chait also donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Has that been mentioned?
A Reasonable Man -- I wonder if Terry would pocket 90% of the money though.
I think that an untold part of this is that the Republicans get snookered every four years with the debates. Sounds reasonable that the honors should be shared around among the various media companies. Except that all of them, except for Fox, are leftist, tending to prefer the Dem candidate. So last time around, we got Crowley cheating on Benghazi, and George here giving Romney hard questions on above ration, while pandering to Obama.
A lot on the right, including a number of the top tier candidates this time, are not happy with the extreme nature of the Dem leaning partisanship of the debates. And, this is an excuse to tell ABC to bugger off. NBC/pMSNBC, CBS, and CNN (Clinton News Network) are already suspect. And this time around, the Republicans have a lot more leverage than they did in 2012, running against an incumbent. So why put up with a maybe 4-1 or 5-1 bias? I think they won't this time, and the first one out is Clinton stalwart GS.
richard mcenroe said...
Ann, the Clinton Foundation gives back out less than 10% of their donations received.
Is this correct? It is certainly not in alignment with their annual report.
If you give money to, say, the American Cancer Society, which I think is pretty efficient, most of the money ends up being paid in salaries for someone, doctors, nurses, scientists. Most costs in most organizations are salaries.
Think about it this way: even by the shitty, fake standards of neutrality the Media tries to pass off, George S fucked up. We all know he's biased, but he did went beyond his clear personal bias and took actions that involved him personally in a story, which he pointedly did not bother to disclose.
It looks pretty bad for the network that their response is to just shrug.
"I think some people are hot to ruin a man"
I think some people who disagree with GS's politics are hot to see the guy held to the same standard he holds those he disagrees with.
"Yours in cruel neutrality,
The Obama Voter"
FIFY
ABC and Disney have been in the Hillary tank since they blocked any reproduction of "The Path to 9/11." They accidentally allowed a hard hitting documentary to be made but quickly shelved that $40 million product. What do you suppose they got for that donation ?
Hmmm ?
"S is what he always was."
That is PRECISELY the problem.
But, but, but must find reason for hating Clintons!
Hating them for the same financial conflicts of interest that Republicans are accustomed to will do.
This is a shot fired at the MSM; there is an alternative press out there digging, digging, digging. And when a punk like George S. is so bloody brazen, he makes an easy target with which to hang others in the MSM.
This is an excuse for the RNC and the eventual R nominee to tell ABC News to sod off when it comes to having one of their news readers on a panel at a debate. It is a tool to affect the bottom line of a news division at the height of when a news division gets ratings.
Other compromised "journalists" will be dug up at other news companies and those individuals will be used by the RNC to tell them to sod off unless they keep the bias to at least a low roar.
That's what is important about this. Clinton loyalist brazenness has opened the door to putting a leash on the media next year.
Well, it's true--you can't lose something you don't have. In Stephanopoulos' case, credibility.
ARM: Is this correct? It is certainly not in alignment with their annual report.
It is, it's a matter of what that 88.4% of "Program" means. The assertion is that because the Clinton Foundation does so much of its work "in house" and gives so little out in grants/direct aid that it's difficult to compare it to other charities that claim similar goals. There's obviously plenty of disagreement with those who characterize the CF as a slush fund with minimal charitable work, but it's worth pointing out that some of the charity watchdog organizations have noted that the CF doesn't operate like most charities (and is thus difficult to "rate").
I am with Big Mike on this: Most people either never knew or have forgotten that S. worked for the Clinton White House.
An interviewer with any semblance of integrity would have informed his viewers of this between bouts of grilling the Clinton Cash book. Oh yeah, full disclosure, the foundation we are discussing is one I personally donate to, might as well have been included.
This must really be different from Republican conflicts of financial interest.
ARM, aren't you interested in breaking this down?
"Program 88.4%"
The county I live in puts out a full page ad in the local paper every year with a breakdown of its budget. There is a line item for "public safety". it's over 80% of the county budget. Among other things, it contains the entire budgets of the police & fire departments. The state does the same thing with education. It lumps huge bonuses and bloated bureaucratic expenses in with kindergarten teachers' salaries -- and deflects any criticism by pointing to the poor elementary school teachers' wages.
It is actually possible to trust the Clintons too much, you know.
----Is this correct? It is certainly not in alignment with their annual report.
Pretty extensive review here, including Foundation tax forms…….
In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
What a joke.
The guy got away with being a partisan "newsman" for 13 years.
Imagine the howls if ABC had hired Michael Deaver or Pat Buchanan.
Now he can fall on his sword and cry all the way to the bank, having played the GOP and the American people for suckers for more than a decade.
R&B wrote:
"This must really be different from Republican conflicts of financial interest."
When you are losing, change the subject.
ARM: to use your American Cancer Society example, below are their numbers from 2012--those numbers show they spent 72% on grants, gifts, etc, supporting research, education, and what not. The ACS then categorizes their overhead separately. The Clinton Foundation, on the other hand, counts their own personnel, travel, and expenses as part of the claimed 88% (really about 80% based on their 2013 taxes), so the claim is that an awful lot of that spending is really overhead, too. I lost the address to a decently evenhanded article I read, but here is a Federalist.com article. They take a pretty tendentious line but that article has links to the pertinent tax return documents.
Overall, 72% of the American Cancer Society resources go to cancer research, patient support, prevention information and education, and detection and treatment. The remaining 28% of resources are spent on management compensation and general infrastructure, and fundraising expenses.
Resources allocated to Program Services include:
• $160 million spent on Cancer Research
• $304 million spent on Patient Support
• $153 million spent on Prevention Information/Education
• $97 million spent on Detection and Treatment
Resources allocated to Supporting Services include:
• $59 million spent on Management and General Expenses
• $218 million spent on Fundraising Expenses
Unknown said...
Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.
By itself this doesn't tell you much. It could spend 0% on charitable grants and just do everything it wants to do using its own staff, which is surprisingly large. Someone has to do something at some point.
The Clinton Foundation itself receives charitable grants, which undermines your logic somewhat, since clearly any money going to the Clinton Foundation is not really charity.
"So what? We already knew that"
This is the problem with the Left. They push for a deal with Iran, we warn about Iran wanting to get nukes to destroy Israel. They say we are being paranoid warmongerers.
Then Iran gets the Bomb.
Then Iran destroys Israel.
And the Left responds "So what? Everyone knew that was the likely outcome"
Its like they have no shame. I wonder if you need to have principles first to have shame?
"I've always assumed Stephanopoulos is biased toward the Clintons."
First, "assume" means "suppose to be the case, without proof." And now we have proof.
Second, not everybody know who that smug little prick is, or his background. Shit, half of the country doesn't know who the Veep is.
"So why put up with a maybe 4-1 or 5-1 bias? I think they won't this time, and the first one out is Clinton stalwart GS."
Slightly off topic, but the whole GOP approach to debates is flabbergasting.
They should accept only sane, first-rate experts, left and right, in the mold of William Galston and Walter Russell Mead.
When you are losing, change the subject.
Same subject, more or less. It's you guys who can't win on this.
Again, the public see it as no different from Republican corporatism. If they bother to look at it at all. For the most part, it's just more Republican rabid foaming at the mouth over details they couldn't care less about. This is the same public that voted for George W. Bush based on his appeal as a beer-drinking buddy.
But thanks for the hysterics. And the presumption that all this stupid subterfuge matters to anyone.
The problem with RWAs is that they believe the intensity of their own hysteria makes them more right. Just look at that whole Libyan bullshit. And the allegations of "murder" in Clinton's white house. After a while the public hears so much crazy and just tunes it out. But go on. Add more partisan outrages to your stupid Santa Claus list of Clintonian naughtiness.
It's wonderful to watch how much you care about things that no one else does. I guess that explains all your hatred for the poor and sick and needy. Normal people care about those things. You guys direct all that otherwise healthy emotion into caring about how the Clintons are apocalyptically evil.
It's an interesting form of sublimation, to say the least. And wonderfully, endlessly entertaining to watch how much political energy you wastefully invest in it.
Carry on.
The Media: We Don't Respect You Enough To Even Pretend Anymore.
"I think some people are hot to ruin a man, and I don't have that taste of blood."
As if the liberal media would allow that to happen. They protected Blow Job Clinton and they'll protect his little liberal flunky too.
When you are losing, change the subject.
Exposing the inherent nature of Republicans as recidivist hypocritical self-righteous corporatist assholes is never far from the subject at hand, and neither is it a loser. Especially when they accuse others of the same.
It's a total redux of the Emperor's New Clothes.
I hope the Clintons do more and more of this. I hope the Republicans get more and more self-righteous about it.
It's actually a huge winner.
The Clinton foundation is a slush fund. That's really all you need to know. It's not a vast right-wing conspiracy to say so.
Frankly, every ex-president sets up a slush fund . Everyone over the last 40 years, anyway. They call it a presidential library.
They protected Blow Job Clinton and they'll protect his little liberal flunky too.
The PEOPLE (remember them?) didn't care about that and they don't care about this.
Being a Republican means mistaking the intensity of your own irrational and unhinged emotions with a public mandate.
Remember, you guys hate democracy. Putting your finger on the pulse of what matters is something you totally suck at! That's why you need such well-paid talented consultants like Dick Morris and Karl Rove to help you figure out clever ways to change the wording of the issues and manipulate the arguments.
Remember, you HATE the little guy, the not-so-well-heeled, the underdog. You LOVE power.
Watching you confuse the power of your own emotions on this for a political groundswell of anything is quite satisfying.
There's dumb
There's dumber
There's utterly stupid
There's stupifyingly stupid
There's so dumb your brain forgets to send signals to your lungs to breathe
And then there's R&B level of stupid, below which there is no room to go
And then there's "Big Mike"s (initials identical to those for "bowel movement") autistic idiocy when it comes to understanding anything related to the human interest. That, and the fact that he goes over to other blogs and threatens physical violence when his arguments don't go his way.
That's colossally stupid. But I think he calls foul on account of it technically being a part of his "handicapped status".
Irregardless, the facts are the facts. The public don't care. And Stephanopoulos can exercise his right to "free speech" (which SCOTUS says is really a form of money) just the same as the Kochs and everyone else can.
@garage mahal:Money isn't free speech!
Flag burning isn't speech.
Movies aren't speech.
Books aren't speech.
The Internet isn't speech.
You know these things.
There's so dumb your brain forgets to send signals to your lungs to breathe.
That actually never happens to me when I witness others' stupidity. I didn't realize such a phenomenon existed.
But the fact that it does for you, is both oddly interesting, and quite hopeful. ;-)
I hope to have that effect on you very often in the future.
Think of it this way; it can't make your mind work any worse.
Now hold your breath and start counting. Don't stop.
This will just work in Clinton's favor.
The public are afraid to vote for the weak.
In our society, money is power.
So whomever commands the ability to direct more money toward their favor, is seen as increasing their political strength.
How many less votes do you think Ross Perot would have gotten if he wasn't a billionaire?
You guys are soooo stupid. Either that, or you understand that these things only help Clinton. And it just makes you madder.
There's no rabies shot as intriguing as the Republican rabies shot.
Rage on, right-wingers. Rage on.
The Clintons have you beat, again.
not to metnion that ABC stonewalled Andrew Stiles while at the same time released a sugarcoated version of "disclosure" to Dylan Byers, a reliable Progressive and Clinton apologist.
Thanks Althouse, for letting your mask of "cruel impartiality" slip again.
what a joke
I notice the rabid RWAs are quieting down on all the noise that presumes this has negative political consequences for Clinton.
If so, I am glad that they are wising up to the Clintonian savvy at emulating right-wing corporatism.
Clinton-Koch 2016? It's not too late for a ticket like that to pan out.
Repeat after me: Clinton-Koch 2016!!!
And 2020!!!
Four years, and then four more!!!
Rhythm and Balls said...
This will just work in Clinton's favor.
The public are afraid to vote for the weak.
In our society, money is power.
Sadly, this is largely true.
May the richest man (and woman) win.
I think I will make a CGI donation through the Althouse Amazon portal, if that's possible.
It's wonderful to see what uses exist for the average voter, blissfully converted to the virtues of electoral corporatism, and making use of such kind hosts as the Althouses to make it all happen!
Thank you, Ms. Althouse, for providing a forum for my donation to Clinton-Koch corporate cronyism!
This is a milestone in my political evolution. As groundbreaking as the Colbert Super-PAC.
ah, I see the usual Progressive operatives are out in force on this one. reliable.
Rhythm and Balls said...
May the richest man (and woman) win.
Please remind which candidate plans to raise 2.5 BILLION for a campaign, while decrying money in politics again?
It's all true, ARM.
And it will work.
Why?
Because the Clintons are more powerful corporatists than their preciously slimy Republicans.
The Clintons get to marry their corporatism with lip-service toward the poor. And that combination is mightily powerful.
Just too bad the Republicans are so busy hating the poor. If they changed their tune to a more Clintonian one, they'd have that much power, too.
But they are stupid, aren't they? Stubbornly stupid.
Good. To the victor belong the spoils.
It's predictable. Like frogs in the spring.
Please remind which candidate plans to raise 2.5 BILLION for a campaign, while decrying money in politics again?
Definitely not the Kochs or ALEC (a right-wing CGI, of sorts). For them, the money involved is the whole point. The politics of it all come a distant second.
Fools!
Sounds like you're not to happy to realize you're losing either, Bob.
But that's what losers do. They lose.
Get used to it. It's another era of Clintonism coming up over the horizon!
The Muslims say they believe that there is no compulsion in religion.
It's an interesting paradox.
And the Republicans taught us a related mantra:
There is no corruption in political cash cronyism.
The Clintons have learned well. They learned from the best.
They learned from the Republicans.
I say good for them.
Peace out, you mutes!
This is interesting. Two commenters are commenting quite frequently. I wonder whether they are different people.
There should be a test for this. I used to work in quality assurance. Maybe we could devise a test that would certify that each person is unique. I haven't figured out how to do that.
Now, one of the commenters seems to have dropped out. That's interesting, too.
Always change the subject to another goofy identity conspiracy when you're losing, Bob. It's a time-honored right-wing mind trick in Althouse-land. (By which I mean, a trick played on one's OWN mind): The idea that there could NEVER be more that ONE non-right wing voice at the same time.
I am glad you are unaware of how stupid this makes you.
Bob Ellison said...
I used to work in quality assurance.
You worked on the Ford Pinto team, I guess.
I haven't figured out how to do that.
No doubt you haven't figured to how to do many things, Bob.
I am fully aware of how stupid I might sound. This has never been a problem for me. It's part of self-awareness. That's something that you don't seem to have.
Stephanopoulis is well known to boomers but to millenials and genxers they grew up when he was presented daily as an American Network's Trusted anchor they presumed must have a fairness habit.
Or should we just not care who believes in skilled liars hiding in plain sight anymore.
I am merely interested in testing the conjecture that you might be one person operating under two identities. I am quite open to the concept that you might be two different stupid people. There are lots of stupid people in the world.
I am fully aware of how stupid I might sound. This has never been a problem for me. It's part of self-awareness. That's something that you don't seem to have.
I never realized not guessing oneself to be stupid, when you're not saying or doing anything stupid,
was a problem, Bob.
Stephanopoulos is not a disinterested observer of the political scene, but his job is to play one on television. He let the mask slip. This will be at the back of people's minds when he reports on political news or interviews guests. He's lost credibility among a good portion of he audience......I don't think Brian Williams is a bad person, but I don't see how he could cover a story about a politician caught in a lie. In like way, any time Stephanopoulos asks a probing question of a Republican, some will think the fix is in.......Stephanopolous is damaged goods as a political reporter. He doesn't have to go on Dancing With the Stars, but he should avoid political issues and all matters Clinton.
There are lots of stupid people in the world.
Indeed. Your 10:31 comment even places yourself in that category.
This has been the most unusual way of changing a subject I've ever seen, to say the least.
Chiming in and crashing a conversation to declare that everyone's stupid, including the person making the declaration.
Will you be performing this function at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Bob?
Sometimes stupidity is a choice, Bob.
Did you learn this crap from your parents? That everyone has to be aware of how stupid they are?
I say you should view it the way Republicans view poverty.
Repeat after me: Stupidity, like poverty, is a choice.
There! You'll be less Republican in no time!
Bob, you have to admit this: Your avatar is pretty damn stupid.
The Republicans should beg to have him as a moderator and make him the issue whenever the time is right. The one Republican candidate who can show him up for what he is gains 15 points in the polls overnight.
Here is a simple test. Try to post several comments within one minute . Maybe one every 10 seconds. Do it under both identities. That would prove pretty definitively that you are two people.
Then again, I could fake that test pretty easily in my house. I've got lots of computers. Wouldn't be hard.
Did I not say that Republicans mistake their own errors for normalcy?
Watch Bob continue in disbelief at the idea that two people BOTH disagree with him. Watch him presume that such a stupid conclusion is widespread, and in need of disproving.
The quality of his mental acuity is most in need of better assurance.
Then again, I could fake that test pretty easily in my house. I've got lots of computers. Wouldn't be hard.
It would definitely be easier than paying for that AI female sim character you use to converse with once everyone's left the room, bored of listening to your surprise at the idea of multiple people not having much in common with you.
Seriously, Bob. What's that nightmarish Rorschach avatar of yours supposed to be, anyway? A big rat turd, followed by a smaller rat turd?
@ Carl Pham Has it occurred to you that a purported "journalist" who actually harbors a strong bias against the candidates and party his favorites are running against can't be a.... "moderator"?
It would take a little time for preparation. Probably at least fifteen minutes.
Boy, it's been a lot more than fifteen minutes. What are you, just lefty assholes?
"Again, the public see it as no different from Republican corporatism."
The pharmacy clerk weighs in with another brilliant argument. This is what Daily Kos is for. Idiots like you.
Remember, you guys hate democracy
All thinking people do, and have since the Greeks showed us all what a bad idea it was. In fact a major purpose of our Constitution was to limit democratic influences.
Every single one of our Founding Fathers, Federalist and Anti- Federalist alike feared and distrusted democracy.
I would argue that many of today's problems have occurred because we have become more democratic over the years.
If I was elected president tomorrow, the first thing I would do is start the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments. I'd like to see the repeal of the last of the Progressive Amendments (all of which have proven to be disasters), but I fear we are stuck with the 19th.
Stephanopolous's conflict of interest is that he goes out and gives the guy who wrote "Clinton Cash" the third degree in an interview without disclosing that HE contributed to the charity that "Clinton Cash" criticizes.
THAT is a major conflict of interest. He's attempting to convince his audience that he's an unbiased interlocutor, when in fact he is a Democrat operative with a byline. He's qualified for the Colmes role in a political commentary show, nothing more. And he sure as hell shouldn't come within ten miles of moderating any political debates next year, although sure as shooting, the League of Women Voters will undoubtedly propose him as a moderator. The Republicans should tell them to go pound sand at that point.
And yes, this is just one more example of the reasons why so many people are contemptuous of the MSM.
It's because of the dishonest, biased coverage provided by media types like George that some people fell for the idea that Obama being President would be beneficial. And the media is trying to do the same thing with Hillary. THAT'S why it's a big deal.
R&B blathered
Remember you guys hate democracy
The dems hate democracy. They will never allow a plebiscite on enforcing immigration law, gay marriage, or taxes, or any one a hundred positions where they believe the desires of the 30% trump the desires of the 70%. It's not even about civil rights with the left, just arbitrary exercise of power: a man must be allowed to where a dress to work, but a person who calls a man in a dress a "man in a dress" must be punished.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the interrogator O'Brien explained to Winston Smith that it was essential that all of Big Brother's rules were arbitrary. Saying that the rules were dependent on anything -- even common sense -- limited Big Brother's power, and that could not be allowed.
R&B and his pals are turning our federal government into Big Brother, all in the name of "civil rights" they define and redefine at their whim.
I'll tell you so what
It seems to me that journalists were buying access to the Clinton team as well, i am betting georgie boy is not alone in this. Further poof if any is needed on the corruption of MM media.
R&B couldn't correctly define "corporatism" if you held a loaded gun to his head.
The only "charity" intended to be helped by the foundation is the Clinton family political aspiration charity.
And the problem is "journalists" (whatever that means) aren't following their own rules.
Well, I am pretty sure that Bill can get all the high class tail he wants without using the secret service or state police anymore. Why not give the old rapist a second chance? After all, there is nobody better than Hillary in the oldest political party in the oldest democracy. Besides, he's cute.
R&B couldn't correctly define "corporatism" if you held a loaded gun to his head.
None of them can. Their breathtaking ignorance of history is one of the greatest resources of the Democrat Party.
They either don't know, or are actively denying that they are basically "corporatists" which is another name for "Fascist."
Nudge-ocracy The New Republic pushes Fascism. And that's just one.
It is a common belief among them that corporations should serve the interests of the state. They are collectivists, like the Fascists. They know that Communism has been and utter failure, so now their task is to deny that what they want has been tried as Fascism. By re-defining the word "corporatism" to mean its exact opposite, they are trying to create a clean slate to try Fascism one more time.
But we are the "right-wingers."
Terrie whined:
The dems hate democracy.
No, Terrie. Actually, Gahrie summed up your position well:
"All thinking people do, and have since the Greeks showed us all what a bad idea it was."
Hatred of the very civilization that was borne out of the Greek political systems of antiquity is what you fascists are all about.
As for your plebiscite complaints, basic/constitutional rights aren't subjected to votes, dilrod. To do that you need a constitutional amendment. Courts have ruled on the scope of constitutional rights since 1803. It's called judicial review. You obviously failed high school civics. (Lemme guess, home-schooled?) And if you hate judicial review, I guess that means we can overturn Citizens United and every 2nd amendment ruling upholding expanded gun access as ruled by Little Scalia and his friends.
You really are the epitome of sophistic idiocy.
And as for "Steven", if your idea of improving brain function consists of holding a gun to your head, you should really try pulling the trigger next time.
Fools, knaves and douchebags. Refuting you turds is easier than swatting away gnats. Annoying, but nowhere near as difficult as the energy it took for you to kickstart your brains into second gear and attempt actual supports for your stupid assertions and presumptions.
The Fascist's deepest complaint is that somebody should own a large corporation and not use it in service of the state. If R&B or ARM were honest with themselves, they would acknowledge that this is their big complaint too. Look at the whole "Koch Bros" thing. The hatred against those guys is due to their refusal to submit to the Party and therefore the State. It's Brownshirt stuff. Only their completely ahistorical worldview allows them not to see it.
So tim in vermont, since you're such an expert on history, what's your take on Teddy Roosevelt's actions against corporate control? Was he "communist" enough to get his depiction removed from Mount Rushmore? Do let us know.
The wisdom of your breathtaking understanding of Fascism (sic) and collectivism is astounding.
Lennon, Marx, and Roosevelt. "tim's" enemies in a nutshell.
And Reagan, too - since he supported that even bigger "collectivist", FDR.
Explanations are awaited, "tim". Don't just sit your ass up there on the mountain. Let us know when we can posthumously revoke TR's and Reagan's citizenship.
These things are important to our history.
"tim" complains about "ahistorical" analysis and then deigns Teddy Roosevelt's policies to be those of a "brownshirt".
Teddy Roosevelt wasn't even alive when "brownshirts" existed, you historically ignorant douchebag fascist.
Here's another "collectivist" in "tim's" "mind" (I use the word "mind" advisedly) - Thomas Jefferson:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,”
Don't be timid, "tim". Go ahead and let us know about the evil communism of Jefferson. And Jackson. And Lincoln.
R&B, Ha ha ha! Them are some pretty good rhetorical arguments and mis-characterizations. You know what rhetoric is? It's words that sound like logic, but aren't.
I would really like to hear your definition of fascism. That would be an interesting start. You could maybe provide a reference outside of Democrat Underground. Until then, I will stick with mine, which is that fascism is state control of the economy with corporations subservient to the state.
Why don't you just admit that's what you want and call it what it is?
You aren't sampling your wares, by any chance R&B? You almost seem a little drunk.
Reagan voted for FDR all four times and repeatedly honored him during his own presidency.
But "tim in vermont" knows that this is because Reagan was only a sekrit commie/collectivist/fascist and not because FDR's acts constituted leadership of the utmost national importance or anything.
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1082
"tim": You're an ignorant douchebag. It really is time to throw in the towel on this.
I realize that you must not have anything to do up there right next to Canada, but fighting invisible Soviets and the McCarthyite enemy against corporatism within must be the epitome of boring.
Maybe go hang out at your local Ben and Jerry's. SOmething to pass the time constructively, without revealing yourself to be too much of an idiot.
No definition of fascism forthcoming then I see. It's Saturday morning, I have a life. Enjoy your angry and ignorant rant.
Your "definition" has been pounded into the most ideologically convenient one to you.
No one of any consequence is arguing for state "control" of business. But then, you think any law or regulation is "control".
Under rule of law, the state enforces laws. That applies to corporations no less than to any individual.
Fascism today is intertwining the state and corporation so tightly that their OWN collective power overpowers those of ordinary citizens. That is what you want.
You want corporations to be above the law and to figure disproportionately into making laws that benefit the largest among them moreso than for smaller businesses or - gasp! - just plain old individual people. I trust that most thinking people realize that that preference makes you the fascist.
It's about taking control by the people away, and that's your aim.
Everyone knows it.
Even on your side.
Time to update your talking/thinking points.
Or think for yourself, for a change.
It's Saturday morning, I have a life.
Right. At 6 AM.
Did your wife let you out yet to run through the backyard yet? She has to do that or else it's possible you might soil the house.
No definition of fascism forthcoming then I see.
My my. You must be as impatient as your owner. Settle down for a quick second and stop being a demanding little puppy.
I see. "tim's" an Alf Landon Republican.
But communists like Reagan voted against Alf, and every other Republican that ran against FDR.
"tim's" historical wisdom prevents him from telling us why this didn't make Reagan a collectivist fascist commie. But you see, it's a Saturday morning and he has a life.
He just had to crank out a string of half-baked shallow assertions, first.
He can't be counted upon to actually know what he's saying.
That would make him a commie collectivist, or something.
Individuals get to just say stupid shit and not back it up.
That's tim in vermont, for you.
Thanks for dropping by.
George did it for the same reason all the high rollers "donated". Access. Who gets the plum interview? Well let us look an the donation list.
Conservatives have been saying the same thing for years. They are not journalists. The a Democrats with a byline.
I bet if you spent minutes you can find Koch bros. charities that spend more money than the Clintons on the causes he supports. Since the Clinton foundation is on watch lists because such a small amount of donated money went to the stated causes.
To change subjects, I really wish Ted Cruz would have his wife give a speech at the next Koch Industries Board retreat. At least then the low-information-voters can be entertained by George twisting himself in a knot trying to explain how that speech is evil, but Bill's speeches dont count.
Who got ritmo all revved up?
At least we can all agree on one thing, the first person to call someone a Fascist for holding contrary opinions is clearly the dumbest person in the room.
That nudge-ocracy was hilarious, Tim in Vermont.
"Barack Obama has the type of mind--orderly, analytical, well-read--that takes naturally to the study of ideas. But he's always been uncomfortable describing himself in ideological terms. Is he a liberal?"
By any measure Obama is the most left-wing president this nation has ever had.
Franklin Foer quotes Obama approvingly:
"There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home."
Perhaps one day this president with the well-ordered, analyrical, well read mind, that takes so naturally to the study of ides, will brazenly claim that there is nothing liberal about wanting people to have jobs or families to have a place to live.
Stephanopolous is not "biased towards the Clintons."
He is the Clintons.
George Stephanopoulos donated to a corrupt Foundation whose donations are used to purchase influence with the Clintons.
He hostilely interviewed the author of a book about the corruption of the Clinton Foundation.
And he did not reveal during, before, or immediately after that interview that he had donated $75,000 to the corrupt Foundation he was busy defending on TV.
If that's acceptable "journalistic" behavior, then the only thing we can believe is that no one should ever trust anything an American "journalist" says"
The more the usual lefty suspects post = the less they have to say. They do a good job of driving thoughtful people away from the post.
Poor 'thoughtful' people. What happened to the liberal women who used to post here?
This thread wasn't this bad, but the comparison seems funny. At least everyone was just throwing words about, and it was often funny.
The funny thing here is that Tim is right about fascism. Many have called BH Obama II a communist. He likely isn't. His putative father BHO, I (Sr.?) was. Socialist? Definitely. But his socialism appears more of the fascist/corporatist type. Companies that work closely with the regime are rewarded, while those that oppose it are broken. We saw this early on in the administration with its treatment of big companies, notably GE, which, at the time owned NBC/pMSNBC. Lot of Stimulus money flowing their way, and even TARP money, after their finance arm getting classified as a bank in record time. The quo being fawning coverage of the Administration by their networks.
Fascism has never been right wing. It has always, from its inception, been a competing totalitarian socialist solution to communism. If you have your doubts, go read Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which was written contemporaneously to fascism former crest, WW II.
I think that one of the fastest ways of discerning whether someone is a fascist or a communist in their socialism, is to look at whether some companies are considered good, and others bad, or all are considered bad. An example - Hillary! Has come out claiming that she has a litmus test for SCOTUS nominees, that they support overturning Citizens United. Which of course was trying to play an anti-Hillary movie. They were therefore considered a bad company, in need of a beat down. The NYT, the major non-Fox networks, etc, are good companies, because they support the Dems, and so need to be rewarded. You also saw some of this with the recent IRS scandal, where Lois Lerner and her buddies sat on Tea Party applications, while allowing Dem affiliated applications to whiz through.
"Stephanopoulos’s defense — that he just wanted to donate to the Foundation’s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation — seems 100 percent persuasive...."
How incredibly gullible must you be to believe that nonsense?
The Clinton Foundation is not, never has been, a "charitable" institution. Its a slush fund for the Clinton family's personal use, with a tiny percentage being given to charity to maintain their tax-exempt status.
Anyone that actually wanted to do something positive for AIDS could find, easily, a thousand better ways to do so.
At best, a contribution to the Clinton Foundation is a POLITICAL contribution.
However, what we've seen repeatedly is that such "contributions" bear a much closer resemblance to actual BRIBES than anything else.
Don't think this is serious? Ask former Governor McDonnell of Virginia, currently in prison, for doing only a tiny fraction of what the Clintons have done. Senator Menendez is currently indicted for few charges where the Clintons have thousands of instances that are all far worse.
Then there's the deal the Clintons made to deliver half the US uranium output to Russia in exchange for hundreds of millions in bribes to their foundation. How is that not Treason?
AReasonableMan said...
At least we can all agree on one thing, the first person to call someone a Fascist for holding contrary opinions is clearly the dumbest person in the room.
That would be you a long time ago.
And he did not reveal during, before, or immediately after that interview that he had donated $75,000 to the corrupt Foundation he was busy defending on TV.
For me, while that was blatant, his undisclosed working for Bill Clinton so closely was maybe worse. Many of us here remember him as Clinton's voice to the world, and maybe even that he had a prominent role in getting Bill elected. But people forget, and the Millenials never knew, and neither did many Gen Ys. More than Hillary, the Foundation has been Bill's legacy. Of course, George is going to attack anyone attacking that foundation, because they are really attacking his old mentor and employer, Bill Clinton.
Of course, this whole thing stinks worse because the person taking the complaint at ABC was a former Hillary! Staffer, who diffused the scandal a bit by leaking it to a sympathetic media before responding to the inquiry by those who detected George's duplicity here. Which is to say that while the two of them worked for different Clinton's, they are both loyal Clintonistas.
Rusty said...
That would be you a long time ago.
How short, and inaccurate, your memory is.
Stef’s statement is clearly an “admission”. An admission is not the same as a confession. An admission may be express, such as a written or verbal statement by a person concerning the truth, or it may be implied by a person's conduct. If someone fails to deny certain assertions which, if false, would be denied by any reasonable person, such failure indicates that the person has accepted the truth of the allegations.
Nobody will ever know what goes on in the Clinton Foundation or circumstances behind Stef’s contributions. But there is no doubt that he conceded some degree of guilt.
I"m ok with him donating so long as we don't hold others to a different standard when they are caught donating.
At least we can all agree on one thing, the first person to call someone a Fascist for holding contrary opinions is clearly the dumbest person in the room.
@ARM, didn't you just call me a Fascist a couple days ago? That was you, wasn't it?
Annie will vote for Hillary. I got a C note bet if there are any takers.
Big Mike, failing to recognize the distinction between mocking the constant use of 'Fascist' and actually believing that calling people Fascist is a sensible way to conduct oneself in public.
"work on AIDS prevention and deforestation"
Today's version of "I did it for the children"
Annie will vote for Hillary. I got a C note bet if there are any takers.
I predicted that weeks ago when she started teasing that she might be interested in Walker.
@ARM:At least we can all agree on one thing, the first person to call someone a Fascist for holding contrary opinions is clearly the dumbest person in the room.
I have never observed anyone here called a fascist for "contrary opinions" except conservatives and libertarians called fascists by progressives.
I have observed progressives called fascist for supporting the use of state power against political opposition, which is in fact fascism.
And I have seen you accuse Republicans of hating Jews, because commenters here called you a fascist.
Gabriel said...
I have never observed anyone here called a fascist for "contrary opinions" except conservatives and libertarians called fascists by progressives.
I have observed progressives called fascist for supporting the use of state power against political opposition, which is in fact fascism.
And I have seen you accuse Republicans of hating Jews, because commenters here called you a fascist.
This is such bullshit it is sad, because you may actually believe it.
Again, mocking the idiots who call their opponents 'Fascists' is a perfectly reasonable response to that level of stupidity. They deserve all the mockery they get. Fascists don't vote for Jews.
What Ann and Chait are (willfully?) ignoring is the actual nature of the Clinton Foundation: it functions as national and international "favor bank" as that term was explicated in Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities. Even the 15% of its donations that go to charitable work are funneled through corrupt third world dictators and their cronies, and operate as payments in exchange for governmental favors (licenses, permits) for major Clinton Foundation donors. All donations are also investments in the future favors to be granted by a Clinton Presidential Administration. Understood as such an investment, Stephanopolis's conflict in interest is quite literal; have has made a $75000 investment the primary value of which is driven by Hillary Clinton's success in becoming President.
You're assuming that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. It is not a charity because charities are not rum by people who are the then currently serving Secretary of State and now candidate for President. The Haiti donations would have been charitable had they been made to the Red Cross, which is a charity. The Clinton Foundation is a money laundering scheme and vehicle for bribes.
We need a Wisconsin prosecutor to open a John Doe investigation of the coordination between the Foundation and the Clinton campaign. Subpoena every donor's records for their entire existence.
@ARM: This is what you said then:
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.
4/22/15, 11:24 AM
This is what you say now:
Fascists don't vote for Jews.
Fascists don;t support Israel either.
Which has nothing whatever to do with Republicans, who frequently do both when occasion requires; but not even all Fascists are anti-Semites.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
That would be you a long time ago.
How short, and inaccurate, your memory is.
No. Not really. Something having to do with abortion, I think.
You're problem is you think you're smarter than everyone else. When in fact you're rather mediocre.
I have just the opposite problem.
"Fascist" is pejorative (as are your enamored terms "communist" and "socialist"), but "corporatist" isn't yet and should be available in common usage as an apt descriptor of what the right has made our system into since 1980.
You can say those who hate socialism are anti-social and those who are ok with corporations having the most power in our politics are corporatist.
I think corporatism's been a feature ever since FDR had to make compromising alliances with industry, but this took off into a more overt and obscene preference in DC deal-making over the last 30 years. The Republicans are especially compromised by it because they hate the voice of the common man so much. They believe that attending first to the needs of the most needy is "socialist", and therefore, wrong.
I think they have a limited point in that more money for the most needy isn't always the answer and that incentives for them matter, but they do seem to take it to a point of being anti-social, and way more worried than they need to be about huge corporations and hugely wealthy donors somehow needing that much more attention and assistance from government. Sheldon Adelson and The Cock Brothers and Donald Trump should really not be the ring bearers of the kissed hands required for presidential nods or basic political, national ambitions.
But as long as they are, it's good that the CGI is available as an unequal and opposite force for the other side.
Fascists don;t support Israel either.
Which has nothing whatever to do with Republicans, who frequently do both when occasion requires; but not even all Fascists are anti-Semites.
Be honest. Republicans (now) "love" Israel because they have to deal effectively with terrorists all around them, remain Western, and aren't Muslim. There is also their Evangelical "base" that identifies with all that AND thinks this conflict will usher in Government OF, BY and FOR The Jesus. Neverminding all those who will die in everything that leads up to it.
I guess this is different from Republican Secretaries of State like James Baker saying "Fuck the Jews! They don't vote for us anyway!", but only marginally less cynical.
Some conservatives get so adamant about using and seeing Israel as a proxy against Iran and others that they will devolve into an abusive spiral if you question whether it's even in Israel's interests to do so.
So whether fascist or not, certainly there are some belligerent, short-sighted usurious nasty assholes out there. And no doubt they have the same nastiness etc. when it comes to dealing with domestic policy.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा