Sorry, I missed this earlier. One line doesn't get the GOP branded as racist. A pattern of that type of stuff over time has. The one line is just additional evidence of the pattern. In the Dem's case, the individual took a lot of flak for that line. If Dems had an extensive history of this type of stuff, it would also be evidence of that pattern.
Politico is one of the few right leaning blogs that’s worth reading. They had an interesting story today on the GOP strategy of running out the clock and not debating or speaking to editorial boards (we see this with Perry). Seems it's a definite pattern. My question is what are they afraid of? Year of the missing candidate With a month left until the midterm elections, there is something noticeably absent from some key statewide races: the candidates. They’re ducking public events, refusing to publicize the ones they do hold and skipping debates and national TV interviews altogether – out of fear of a gotcha moment that will come back to haunt them. It’s mostly, but not entirely, a Republican phenomenon. In some cases, a tea-party-oriented candidate has made a plain calculation that a one-day, process story about an absence from the campaign trail or a refusal to debate is less damaging than the captured-on-tape gaffe the candidate could make when facing reporters.
Politico is actually down the middle - they have people on both sides of the political spectrum and don't aim to have any sort of overall political bent. When they've been accused of systemic bias, it's generally of leaning right ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3011.html ). They've never really been accused of being to the left. The fact that you think they are leftist probably suggests your views are skewed or you're not reading the entirety of the site.
When you are up by three with the ball, the other team is out of timeouts, and the two minute warning is in the rearview, you don't throw for the endzone, you take a knee and get off the field with a win.
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Aj-MpP5n3uE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Aj-MpP5n3uE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
via MoveOn -- Foreign money buying US elections An explosive new report just came out and it shows that foreign corporations are funding some of the $75 million the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to defeat Democrats this election cycle.1 The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA). As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections. --------- thank you Mr Robert's court!
Michelle Bachmann in MN has taken a similar pattern and has only agreed to a debate the week before the election. Tom Emmer the Republican in the race to replace Tim Pawlenty for MN Gov. has taken the opposite approach and has already appeared in many debates.
This probably deserves it's own thread. More on the Chamber of Commerce and their money laundering for foreign business's wanting to influence our election. Chamber Of Commerce Thrust Into Political Firestorm The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's $75 million campaign effort for the 2010 elections is being threatened by allegations that the business lobby receives funds from foreign entities to use on electioneering.
BTW, the President was right! <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xyCwWjbkumE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xyCwWjbkumE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Alito’s ‘Not True’ Retort Was Not True When President Obama warned in last January’s State of the Union address that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our election,” right-wing Justice Samuel Alito infamously mouthed the words, “Not True.” Yet we now know that Alito’s remark was, well, “not true.” As Lee Fang reported yesterday on ThinkProgress, the Chamber of Commerce raises hundreds of thousands of dollars from foreign corporations every year, and then funnels that money into “the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) account which is the vehicle for the attack ads.” The Chamber has issued a series of weak denials of Fang’s reporting, alleging that they “have a system” to ensure that money donated by BP or other foreign corporations does not directly fund attack ads, but they provide no details on this elusive system. Referencing ThinkProgress’ work, the New York Times points out in a well-written editorial today that the Chamber has lobbied hard to maintain the cloud of secrecy over it corporate electioneering: Money is fungible. So, when the Chamber or other wealthy corporate interest groups spend foreign corporate donations on general operating expenses, that frees up other money in their operating budget to be spent on attack ads or other expenditures. In other words, it now looks pretty clear that President Obama was right, and Justice Alito was wrong, about the impact of the Supreme Court’s most infamous recent decision.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K7QwRIxis7w?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K7QwRIxis7w?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Ah the republican governor’s association! They must be so proud about 2,000 people have watched their commercial ONLINE. Any comment on the conservative chamber of commerce laundering money for foreign companies trying to buy American politicians?
struggling to understand why the chamber of commerce would find this administration objectionable... Spoiler oh, wait...
