Money Talks, Suckers Walk
In regard to the stories about refunds of contributions to Big Wheels, I don't have strong feelings either way, and a couple of Devil's Advocates could argue both sides.
I do note, however, that even though the latest, baddest story was not broken until August 8 or thereabouts, the stories, both National Enquirer and blind items in the New York (Daily News or Post, I forget which), go back to at least August, 2007, and the bizarre stories regarding Ms. Hunter and Mr. Young developed months ago, so the campaign has been on notice that a big storm was on the horizon for much longer than August 8, 2008.
There were reasons a long time ago for the campaign to start placating big supporters in some way. Those are the supporters who probably have access to the candidate and campaign leaders, and who could influence action from general pressure and explicit statements of chagrin, whether there were specific questions as to why the candidate had not thought with his brain, and "what the heck is going on and I spent all my time bundling for you for this mess to develop?"
It is probable that most regular Jills and Joes who sent small donations would not have such access and implicit, if not explicit, influence. The regular Jills and Joes would get their info and ability - - or lack of ability - - to exert influence as a group from the MSM - - - and now back to square one re the MSM. When the recent explosive story came out and the MSM covered it - - or covered their failure to cover it - - Andrea Mitchell said on a cable news show that the journalist community had known about the stories for a long time. It sounds as if journalists knew and sat on it, and those in the inner circle knew, or knew something was stinky, and said, "I'm disappointed with you. I am taking your allowance away this year."
Most scenarios don't unfold all neat and tidy like on "Matlock," where the evidence is so obvious the lawyer just explains it in a five minute narrative and then asks the stunned and cowering witness, merely, "Isn't that true?" It is a mistake to assume after the fact, with enhanced hindsight, that all actions in any scenario took place with perfect knowledge on behalf of the actor. It may simply be a case of the squeaky wheel got the grease.
Big supporters may have been harrumphing because they knew something was up, whereas regular Jills and Joes may have had to choose between the National Enquirer and John Edwards, their hero, who said it was all a pack of lies.
To be fair to all donors, big and small, if there was not enough money to repay all contributions, then the campaign should have issued pro rata refunds to all donors in both Americas, without waiting to be asked.
[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair, scandal and cover-up: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library.]
by Phil Ander
image: learnsomethingnewtoday
Highly-Selective Nature of Edwards' Refunds is Questioned
NOT Their Legality
"I donated what I consider to be a significant sum of money to John Edwards, but I am not an lawyer. Is there a website address where I can apply for a refund?
Is there a deadline for applying for refunds? I would appreciate any help anyone can give me."
--Iowa Pensioner, in a comment to our earlier story, Edwards’ Campaign Quietly Refunds Contributions to Bundlers, Big Backers
Who in the John Edwards' campaign speaks for Iowa Pensioner and her America?
Is Iowa Pensioner a lone voice crying in a wilderness full of Edwards' apologists and would-be FEC lawyers?
UPDATES, if any at DBKP: John Edwards Campaign Refunds: More Questions than Answers
Our stories earlier today [Edwards’ Campaign Quietly Refunds Contributions to Bundlers, Big Backers & John Edwards Scandal: Many Big Edwards Donors Got Refunds in March] caused a bit of a stir.
PJ Gladnick at Newsbusters, immediately got our point and put it in his headline,[Web Scoops MSM: Edwards Refunds Contributions to One of His Americas]. So did Moonbattery's Van Helsing:
The disgraced John Edwards has proven himself right about there being two Americas: one is rich enough to get their campaign donations quietly refunded; the other is poor enough to ignore. Following Warren Buffet's warning that donors could give the ambulance-chasing Breck Girl a dose of his own medicine with a class action lawsuit, DBKP reports:
As well as Tom McGuire, at Just One Minute: "Wouldn't that buttress a class-action lawsuit? Why is Edwards taking care of his fat-cat bundlers but not reimbursing Joe Lunchbucket's $100? Troubling."
Paleo Pat puts it thus: "It seems that John Edwards is giving much of his money back to the “Big Bundlers” some of whom are convicted felons." Snoop, at Political Party Poop, saw the irony: "LOL!"
Everyone else, including Edwards' apologists and campaign ho-hummers: let's be clear and drop the word games. We're not (and weren't in our earlier stories) questioning the legality of the refunds, but the highly-selective nature of who received their money back.
One reader wrote: "This would have been a real scoop if big contributors were getting refunds but little contributors weren’t after Edwards confessed to his affair. The true explanation appears to be pretty mundane."
If there is truly "mundane", then why did only ONE CLASS of contributors receive their money back? We have our doubts about how "mundane" the explanation is to small Edwards' contributors.
Of the 2247 contributions returned as of July 31, 2008: only 125 of these were for UNDER $100 dollars (discounting multiple donations that may have included a donation for under $100). Most of these smaller donations went to lawyers, doctors and others with substantial incomes.
Why did only contributors from One of Edwards' Two Americas get their money back?
We will wait for an answer.
We spoke with the FEC and the Center for Responsive Politics this afternoon. Again, nothing illegal (we're sorry if we left that impression, but upon re-checking our stories, the word "illegal" does not appear in either.) was implied. What was not implied, but asked quite directly: WHY did the multi-millionaires--mostly trial lawyers--get their money back in such a timely manner?
We appeal to former Edwards' supporters: did you know that you could apply to the campaign for a refund? Did you know that if you designated your contribution for the general election, you would get a refund? Were you, as an Edwards' contributor, informed by the campaign at any time--especially after Edwards' August 8 Nightline appearance--that you could ask for your money back?
At the Edwards' campaign website, there are no instructions whatsoever to help the little guys in obtaining a refund.
The person at the FEC that we spoke to was somewhat helpful:
"If the candidate drops out after the primaries, then all contributions designated for the general election--not the primary election--then the contributions, by law, have to be refunded to the contributors. If the individual contributor wants a refund of his/her donation made for the primary election, it's up to the discretion of the campaign whether to make the refund."
We were directed to this FEC document for further questions. Although it's labeled for "Congressional campaigns", we were told the "same rules apply to presidential campaigns." The only item concerning "refunds" was found on page 182 of the pdf document:
Refunded Contribution—A contribution is refunded when the recipient committee first deposits the contribution and later sends the contributor a check for the entire amount (or a portion) of the contribution. 103.3(b). Compare with definition of returned contribution.
Returned Contribution—A contribution is returned when the recipient committee sends the original check (or other negotiable instrument) back to the contributor, without depositing it. 103.3(a). Compare with definition of refunded contribution.
It seems we're back to our original question: if it's largely up to the discretion of the campaign, then why did the Edwards' campaign's discretion favor the large contributors?
Again, why did some of the biggest contributors receive money back for both the primary and general election?
Massie Ritsch, of the Center for Responsive Politics, was very helpful both in a phone conversation and in emails he sent from Denver, where he's attending the Democrat convention. CRP is looking into the refund process also, as there seems to be not much written on it (as we discovered while writing our original stories).
But Massie was very clear on a possible remedy for disaffected Edwards' donors:
"There might be plenty of trial lawyers that supported John Edwards willing to take that [class action] case."
"It's like a corporation," Massie continued, "that takes money from investors and doesn't inform them of all they know."
1 How many non-lawyers were aware that they had to designate their contributions for use in the general election to get them back by law?
2 Why were the overwhelming majority of people who received refunds big donors? Some of these donors apparently received back their contributions from both the primary and general elections: if this was at the discretion of the campaign, why were only large contributors from One of the Two Americas considered?
There is some redundancy in the above paragraphs, but it's there for a reason: it's not the illegality of the refunds that interest us; it's the highly-selective nature of who received them.
Why did Fred Baron receive his money back and not Iowa Pensioner? Why did Michael Eisner get a refund and not "emma" who wrote: "“…and i gave $500 to his campaign which went to pay for his whore’s meals! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!”?
Why did Dean Hanley, of Berkeley CA, get his $6900 back in two separate refunds, while GA Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield ($750) didn't?
Our earlier stories also piqued the interest of Walter Olsen, Overlawyered:
Ted must be feeling prescient regarding his speculations about an Edwards-contributor refund class action now that Warren Buffett has weighed in on the idea [Kaus]. And in fact the Edwards campaign does seem to be refunding some contributions in interesting ways, if one account pans out (bundlers! Thomas Girardi! John O’Quinn!) [DBKP, more, yet more]
John Edwards spoke on the campaign trail of the Two Americas, poverty and helping the poor vs. the rich.
When it came time for his campaign to put its money where his mouth was, it was clear which of his Two America got their money back.
Who speaks for those people now?
by Mondoreb
image: dbkp file
John Edwards' Two Americas:
The Fat Cats and Bundlers Who Got their Money Refunded;
The Working Stiffs Who Stayed in the Dark
* The John Edwards' campaign has already refunded $3,831,398 to contributors--many who contributed the maximum of $2300.
* 2,247 donors have already received money back from the John Edwards--many who are trial attorneys and political "bundlers"--and most received it back on March 24.
* Refunds to small donors under $100 have accounted for only 1/5th of one percent, so far, according to Open Secrets.com.
* The Edwards campaign still has $4,791,200 cash on hand, according to its July 31, 2008 filing.
* There are no instructions on the Edwards' campaign website for applying for a refund, though the campaign is still taking donations on the same site. It may be that refunds will be issued on a "first come, first serve" basis, but that is speculation. More on the refund process in a DBKP story to be published later Monday.
For any readers who gave money to the John Edwards' campaign and are now upset that perhaps that hard-earned $50 or $100 (or more) went to pay for Rielle Hunter's stay in the tony Governor's Club or Andrew Young's BWM that Hunter drove for awhile, there's hope yet to recover that money.
While searching for info on another John Edwards' story, DBKP's LBG uncovered something previously unreported in the media: the Edwards' campaign made a number of refunds to campaign contributors on March 24. Most were large contributors--trial attorneys and political contribution bundlers--and many received $2300, or more, back from the Edwards' campaign. Many not only received refunds themselves, but members of their families who had contributed also received checks from the campaign in March.
For a candidate that ran on a "Two Americas" theme, when it came time for refunds, only One America got campaign refund checks, while the other America was kept in the dark.
Until now.
Warren Buffet told CNBC last week: "I've seen a lot of class-action suits with less to it than this particular case. The facts are clear. I mean, he [John Edwards] solicited money and he wasn't telling the truth to the people he was soliciting it from."
Buffet was talking class action, but DBKP has learned that the Edwards' campaign has refunded $3,831,398--the bulk of it back on March 24, when the campaign quietly issued refunds to the vast majority of the 2,247 who've received their money back.
Many of those receiving refunds were big trial attorneys and bundlers--those political money men/women who round up boatloads of cash for a candidate's campaign.
One such bundler was Atlanta attorney, Stephen Leeds. He received $2300 back on March 24. Apparently, at least one of the contributors, who gave Leeds $750 of her money for Edwards, has not.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in a story Sunday of one such former Edwards' backer who wants her money back.
“That’s money I could have put in my children’s college fund,” state Rep. Stephanie Stuckey Benfield (D-Atlanta) said of her contributions to Edwards.
Stuckey said she donated a total of $750 to Edwards and has contacted former Edwards backer Stephen Leeds trying to find out how to get a refund.
Leeds, an Atlanta attorney, has been an Edwards supporter since 2002 and was considered Edwards’ point man in metro Atlanta. Leeds said he now backs presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama and has no idea if there is any money in Edwards’ campaign coffers to return to disgruntled former supporters. He said he has not talked with Edwards since the scandal broke.
“John ended up dishonoring an awful lot of people in this process, from his family to a lot of his supporters,” said Leeds, who gave Edwards $2,300 for his primary run and $2,300 for the general election.
The Journal-Constitution reported that Leeds stated, "Any general fund campaign contributions will be returned to donors because he [Edwards] is not running in November".
Leeds should be able to help Benfield get her money back: Leeds received $2300 back from the campaign in March, according to Open Secrets.com.
Lee Stranahan predicted last week, in a Huffington Post article, that Democrats might want their money back from Edwards:
Some Democrats Will Want Their Money Back : It's already becoming something people are talking about informally but it's just a matter of time before lawsuits start because it's becoming clear that Edwards used campaign money to take his girlfriend on the road with him. Times are hard and this could become a new and innovative economic stimulus plan for Democrats.
Again, for the first lucky applicants, no lawsuits are necessary: just be at the front of the line and be the first on your block to get your John Edwards' stimulus check!
At least that's the speculation until later today, when a few experts in the field will give their views in a yet-to-be-published DBKP article.
More from Warren Buffett on the class-action matter:
CNBC: Did you ever give money to John Edwards along the way?
BUFFETT: No, I didn't--I didn't give money to John Edwards. And, in fact, I think if I'd given money to him, I'd probably be asking for it back now. It's an interesting situation because John Edwards essentially was soliciting money from people to further his ambitions for the presidency, and, you know, people sent him 50, $100, $200, and I would say that they sent it in while they were being misled by the person who was soliciting the money from them. And, you know, I think if I were Edwards, I might give up a haircut or two and refund at least, you know, the people that gave the 50 or $100, $200 items, because they-- if they had known the facts, they wouldn't have sent him the money, and he is the guy that didn't give them the facts. I mean, he knew that, in effect, he wouldn't be elected president. I mean, the story was out there during the campaign. He denied it, but it was out there. And, in fact, I've never heard of it, but it might be kind of interesting if somebody, some contributor, would bring a class-action suit on behalf of all these people who essentially were led to send money to a man under totally false circumstances, false pretenses, and where he knew it and didn't tell them the truth.
Mickey Kaus commented on the Buffett class-action idea:
Heh! ... I would think this would be a difficult precedent to contain--can donors sue McCain because he didn't, in fact, get "the message" from the defeat of his immigration semi-amnesty bill--and he knew it? Maybe businesses have to live with this sort of uncertain class-action threat when they dissemble. Politicians will never stand for it.
But again, why go the legal route--that seems more make-work for the bundler-types, many who've already received their refund checks--when you can apply to the Edwards campaign directly for your money back?
Time may be of the essence here: the campaign reported $4,791,200 cash on hand in its July 31 filing. Because there is no information on the Edwards' campaign website about a refund process--but one whole page dedicated to collecting donations is still active--contacting the campaign would seem to be a must.
And, "first come, first served" might be something for disgruntled Edwards' contributors to keep in mind. DBKP is still probing the matter and will have more on the process, as well as a story on who received their cash back in March, only seven weeks after the former NC senator called it quits.
One such contributor left a comment on one of our Edwards' stories just last week. Identified only as "emma", the comment may ring a bell with some former Edwards' contributors:
"...and i gave $500 to his campaign which went to pay for his whore’s meals! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But, there may be hope yet for emma.
She may not be a big campaign cash bundler--42% of all Edwards' bundlers received refunds so far, most on March 24--but 125 contributors who gave under $100 have gotten refunds back from the Edwards' campaign thus far.
In a story to be published later today, more facts about the March refunds:
* Who got their money back early?
Fred Baron was one, ex-NBA player Eric Montross--who rented his Governor's Club house to Andrew Young for awhile--was another. Many trial lawyers, such as John O'Quinn, William Lerach and Thomas Girardi, were in on the Edwards' early refund program.
* Who in Hollywood got back money already from the campaign?
* What small contributors--who earned big bucks--have already gotten their money back?
Also, later today: How to apply for refunds.
As J.G. Wentworth says in his TV commercials, "It's your money."
by Mondoreb
notes: LBG
images:
New sox
Confessions of a Wannabe Adman
Hiphop Republican
Fly the Friendly Skies of Fred
An Appeal for Tail Number from Fred Baron's Plane
John Edwards is embroiled in a Chinese water torture-like hell of his own making and Fred Baron is apparently along for the (plane) ride.
DBKP wrote yesterday of some odd arrangements between Fred Baron and the John Edwards campaign. More is planned for later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, we were sent notice of some related news.
[Background information: access over 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards affair, scandal and cover-up in the John Edwards Love Child Scandal library.]
Laura Leslie, of WNCU North Carolina Public Radio, is perplexed about the odd arrangements between the John Edwards campaign and finance chairman, Fred Baron.
Last but not least…Last night, I asked why Edwards’ campaign was paying its campaign finance chairman hundreds of thousands of dollars. (For the record, they usually don't get paid at all.) I got an answer today.
FEC records show the Edwards campaign actually paid “Frederick Baron” a lot more - about $1,024,000 over the course of 2007. According to OpenSecrets.org, it was reimbursement for airfare. In the last and current campaign cycles, Edwards frequently used a small private plane that Baron says he “has control of.” But Sept 2007 changes in election law require campaigns to report and pay for loaner planes at market rates.
Leslie goes on to say all's according to Hoyle and that Clinton and Obama spent more on airfare. But then this: "But some insider folks I talked to today raised a couple of red flags."
Red flags?
Who would've thought we'd be using "the Edwards Affair" and the subsequent cover-up and "red flags" in the same sentence? Not anyone in the MSM until late July.
Back to the Laura Leslie's red flags.
- When a candidate’s traveling to multiple destinations in a short time, private planes make more sense. But when it’s a simple itinerary, commercial airline travel is usually cheaper. Relatively speaking, Edwards’ folks spent a lot of time on his friend’s private plane, regardless of the price – especially surprising, given his tight fundraising battle with Clinton and Obama.
- Charter planes, no matter who owns them, are usually operated by some type of company. The campaign usually pays the operating business, not the owner. But in this case, records show the campaign wrote the checks directly to Frederick Baron. That's not illegal, but it's pretty unusual.
- Most nebulous but most interesting: one reputable source told me, “You know, if you wanted to move some money out of a campaign without too many questions, private airplane bills would be a really good way to do it.” Why? Even if you can crosscheck manifests and destinations (no small job, BTW – 122 billings in 2007 alone), the pricing itself can be tough to verify.
The day before, August 10, Patterico's noticed something at a "website called “Web of Deception” has the following interesting observation, complete with links supporting the allegations:"
Fred Baron provided money to Hunter and Young because he stated he liked them and during that exact period of time he was given $389,698.45 from the “John Edwards for President” campaign and received another $57,428.00 the month Hunter went into the hospital to give birth.
Patterico was so interested by all this that he sent Fred Baron an email to inquire into the curious nature of all of this. Mr. Baron responded:
The payments you reference were made to an aviation company that I control to reimburse travel expense from the campaign — the FEC mandates these charges to be paid by the campaign and they have been reported in our FEC public filings — I hope this answers your question.
Patterico noted that he "sent Mr. Baron a few follow-up questions," and "hoped he would respond".
It's our hope, too.
Laura Leslie finished her segment of John Edwards' travel musings with a mention of an "interesting coincidence".
Interesting coincidence: The day in 2007 that Edwards’ campaign spent the most on Baron’s jet – $89,562 – was October 9th, one day before the National Enquirer published allegations that Edwards was having an affair with an unnamed campaign staffer. (Edwards, for the record, was apparently on the ground in Iowa that day.)
Anyone following this story since December will notice that this is not the only "interesting coincidence" that has occurred. The John Edwards scandal is replete with such coincidences.
Did the Edwards campaign use travel billings to transfer money back to Fred Baron to transfer to Rielle Hunter? We can only speculate--for now.
While in December, the many, many coincidences in the Edwards-Hunter story excited no curiosity outside the offices of the National Enquirer and a few blogs, today they attract the attention of a much wider audience.
Which partially explains the "drip, drip, drip" that John Edwards and Fred Baron are currently feeling.
[NOTE: Any readers who can lay hands on a picture or registration number of Fred Baron's "mystery plane", might email DBKP (mondoreb@gmail.com). Any information which is used gets the lucky contributor an all-expenses paid, luxury hat tip.]
by Mondoreb
images:
* pjs group
* no fenders
Questions for John Edwards and Fred Baron When Next Either Surfaces to Confront the Press
A "Thank You" to our Network of Readers, Comment-writers and Tipsters!
[Click image to enlarge.]
John Edwards and Fred Baron have had a close relationship over the last ten years. Both Edwards and Baron are successful trial attorneys and both shared the dream of seeing John Edwards elected President.
Baron, however, alleges that he never shared his knowledge of helping Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, and Edwards' operative, Andrew Young, with expenses totaling thousands of dollars. He recently stated that although he admits talking to Elizabeth Edwards about the subject, he more recently stated he never mentioned Rielle Hunter's arrangements to Elizabeth Edwards.
A DBKP reader, known only as "Phil Ander", did some independent research into the Edwards' campaign's use of Fred Baron's private jet and turned up some interesting information--and a LOT of questions about the connection. The research must have taken some time to compile--it took two of us some time just to confirm and follow its weaving, winding trail.
Readers can ask their own questions after reading.
Or, perhaps they will have additional questions of their own.
[Background information: Access almost 100 DBKP stories on the John Edwards affair and cover-up since December: John Edwards Love Child Scandal Library. Updated daily.]
The information on the Internet does not jibe. There is probably a logical explanation but it is not apparent.
Some Additional Questions to Ponder
If there are no registration records for an aircraft in Fred Baron's name, why is the campaign paying Frederick Baron for airfare?
If Fred Baron's ownership is through a corporation, why were the payments listed repeatedly to him instead of the corporation?
Assuming there is error, and Fred Baron does, in fact, own a Hawker 800 (or BAE 125 800), why would he engage in the business of leasing it and receiving substantial income in his individual name rather than doing business through a corporation for liability and tax reasons? He is a lawyer and would know to consider a corporation for doing business. He set up a not-for-profit corporation for his charitable foundation, Baron & Blue, so it seems like he would also set up a corporate entity for his aircraft leasing business and require all payments to be made to it.
If a payment were made erroneously to the individual rather to the business once or twice, it could be a simple error, but it seems unusual that dozens of payments would be paid to Baron individually.
Would there not be a difference in accounting for income and being able to deduct expenses for an individual and a corporation?
Would it be possible, if payments were made to an individual for jet leasing, that excess funds could be paid without easy detection and then passed on to other parties?
Is it possible to obtain flight records to determine how payments were applied to flights?
Can the campaign provide a copy of the contract with Fred Baron for jet leasing and cancelled checks made in payment?
Is it possible to compare flight expense data of Edwards' campaign with other candidates to see if the expenses are in the ballpark?
On a different topic, if Midline Groove was paid in excess of $114,000 for video production pursuant to a contract, did Midline Groove or the campaign pay Rielle Hunter’s hotel and meals expenses on the road?
Can the campaign provide a contract to make clear how those expenses were paid and to clear up other questions about the services provided?
These questions might be the starting point for the enterprising MSM reporter, when next Fred Baron or John Edwards surfaces to face the press.
If John Edwards continues in seclusion and Fred Baron is hard to reach on the matter, perhaps someone might talk to Julian Chambers, the Edwards' campaign treasurer.
It may just be a mistake or a misunderstanding, but it might take a burden off the shoulders of both John Edwards and/or Fred Baron, if they would clear up a few of these questions.
Or not.
[A BIG hat tip/credit to the intrepid researcher and DBKP reader--you know who you are--known in the comments only as Phil Anderder.]
NOTE: This might be the place to express heartfelt thanks to the many readers who have left interesting information to investigate further or information that is ready to publish. Since December, DBKP readers have provided tips, research, answers and places to for us to dig for more information.
These many readers--and again, you all know who you are--sometimes leave their information in the comments sections of our stories. A few of these comments have excited the curiosity of MSM reporters trying to get up to speed on the Edwards' scandal and it many threads. Several have emailed us with information--some that we can't publish as of yet. We've spoken to several who have emailed us over the phone, as they felt the information was 'too sensitive to put down on paper' and wished to convey it orally.
These readers make DBKP appear to be very smart and well-informed. And so we are--thanks, in large part, to these interested, hard-working readers. As well as to our crack research department.
THANK YOU ALL!
by Mondoreb
images: dbkp file; Fred Baron
Culture Watch, vol. 28
Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
August 18, 2008
China, on the other hand, appears to be cheating. The age of their gymnasts is in question, they faked parts of the opening ceremony and the little cutie who sang was apparently lip synching. The actual singer had buck teeth and wasn't cute enough.
 This photo of Obama’s registration for school in Jakarta documents Barack Obama as Barry Soetoro, nationality as Indonesian and religion as Islam |
A surfer in New Smyrna Beach was caught paddling frantically after spotting a shark closing in on him
STUDIES:
 |
Till next Monday, keep smiling,
by Nancy Morgan
Right Bias.com
Culture Watch may be reprinted, with attribution to Nancy Morgan and RightBias.com
Obama: Smoke and Smears
Is this any way to run for President of The United States of America?
The Obama campaign has been employing an unusual strategy for the last two months or so. Whenever Obam is criticized by anyone, the campaign regurgitates a press release asking McCain to keep to issues, to please not go back on his word to run an honest, positive campaign, and oh, by the way, please destroy, disavow and discredit the person or entity who dared criticize the Messiah.
This laughable strategy works because it has the full and complicit backing of the Mainstream Media and--on 2 or 3 occasions--McCain, who panicked instead if standing up like a man and ridiculing the practice. The ultimate example of this may have occurred in the last few days.
Recently, an author by the name of Jerome Corsi released a book that shot to the top of the Best Seller list. The book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, is highly critical of Obama. So naturally, instead of the candidate dealing with the contents, the DNC Rapid Response Team (yep, we are not kidding, )fired off a press realease. As reported by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs,
(The Corsi Letter), the email stated,
From: DNC Rapid Response Team
Subject: Fight Swift BoatingFriend —
Yesterday, you learned about the right-wing’s latest attack: extremist Jerome Corsi and his book of the same old smears and lies.
This morning, when asked about the book, all John McCain could say about Corsi’s outrageously false attacks was, “Gotta keep your sense of humor.” Despite pledging to run a respectful campaign, McCain is just standing by while Corsi and his publisher, former Dick Cheney aide Mary Matalin, poison this presidential race.
Now we here at DBKP were a bit taken aback, by that statement. It reeks of innuendo and prevarication; it is unclear who asked the question or why. The implication is that a reporter asked it, and indeed, the Wall Street Journal later reported that to be the case. If so the reporter is a dolt who should be fired for incompetence or for planting a question.
Because Corsi is not a Republican.
And even if McCain were the head of the GOP--which he is not--exactly what could he do?
Jerome Corsi is a member of the Constitution Party. In fact, Corsi intensely dislikes Bush and Cheney and has said so on numerous occasions and in no uncertain terms--as any political reporter should know. Corsi even competed for the nomination of President of the Constitution Party. But this Obama lie is all over the media.
As for McCain and Corsi, Corsi accused John McCain for being an Islamic frontman for Hezbohhah because of his support of Kosovo independence.No love lost there. The head of The Constitution is a fellow named Chuck Baldwin (http://www.baldwin08.com/).
Maybe Obama can take it up with him.
As for McCain's reaction, it is entirely appropriate: the "cry-baby-make-it-stop" campaign style of Obama has become obnoxious. Not only should McCain laugh at this incredible gaffe and attempted smear, so should the whole country.
As for Obama, why don't you put away the teleprompter, stop hiding behind the curtain, and answer Mr Corsi's questions. Better still, challenge him to a debate.
Then we can all laugh.
by pat
image: RidesAPaleHorse
3 1/2 Months Ago, Clinton Campaign Predicted "Landslide"
Hubris n. : Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.
Back on November 15--a mere 130 days ago--the Clinton campaign was of a very different mindset than the one exhibited today.
Cocky, brash--dare we say it?--arrogant and in the full throes of hubris, the campaign was more of a Clinton Early Inauguration Committee than a campaign braintrust.
This is what Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn told The Hill on November 15 2007.
Mark Penn, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) chief strategist, said Thursday that the Democratic front-runner would get 360 electoral votes if the election were held tomorrow and she faced former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).
The Clinton campaign was totally convinced that they would roll over all comers, regardless of party or persuasion. Penn said as much in a campaign memo.
Republicans, at the time, were a bit more skeptical.
“It is good to see that the Clinton camp can maintain a sense of humor after the worst two weeks of their campaign,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Before they start drafting memos on general election strategy, someone ought to write a plan to stop Hillary Clinton’s sinking poll numbers in the early states or figure out where their candidate stands on Social Security, tax reform, and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.”
We mention this only because an email from DBKP's own RidesAPaleHorse was discovered this evening.
We wonder how many pundits would have taken his words seriously 130 days ago, but RAPH sounds positively like a political prophet now.
He supplied the picture below and wrote, "Do you suppose this is the landslide they're talking about? Looks like she won in this one at least. :-D "
This just proves one thing, which should be remembered some TV talking head issues a solemn prediction on a news talk show.
130 days is an eternity in the political campaign game.
by Mondoreb
images: photobucket; RidesAPaleHorse
Sources:
* Clinton Campaign Hubris: "Landslide" Was Prediction in November
* Clinton Campaign: Hillary would Win in a Landslide if Election were held Tomorrow
* Hubris
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Did the Hillary Clinton campaign leak a photo to Drudge of Barack Obama in traditional African dress?
Hillary's answer: Who cares?
During a Monday interview with ABC's Dallas affiliate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., did not flatly deny the DrudgeReport's charge that her campaign forwarded a photo of rival Barack Obama in traditional African dress.
Clinton then accused her Democratic rival of using the controversy to distract the public's attention from deficiencies in his stand on the issues and his experience.
But she didn't say anything about his lead in Democrat delegates.
"I know nothing about it," Clinton told ABC affiliate WFAA. "This is in the public domain. But let's just stop and ask yourself: 'Why are you -- why is anybody concerned about this?'"
Clinton said that she found questions about whether her campaign leaked the photo to be "really laughable."
"This is one more attempt by my opponent's campaign to change the subject," said Clinton, "From his health-care plan that won't cover everybody, from an economic plan that won't produce jobs, and from a record that is pretty thin when it comes to national security and standing up for our country around the world."
"Every time I traveled to foreign countries, I wore the costume of the country. You can find dozen of pictures of me in different parts of the world," said Clinton. "You can find me wearing African outfits, Latin American outfits, Asian outfits, when you travel to foreign countries, it’s a sign of respect. What does that have to do with anything?"
No one in the Clinton campaign knew anything about the leak to Drudge.
No one.
During a Monday conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said that the former first lady's campaign "did not sanction" the leaking of the photo. But he stopped short of denying whether a Clinton aide may have passed it to the DrudgeReport.
"I'm not in a position to ask 700 people to come in," said Wolfson.
Back in October, The New York Times identified Tracy Sefl as the Clinton campaign's conduit to the DrudgeReport.
Asked by ABC News on Monday if she gave the photo to the DrudgeReport, Sefl, who is vice president at the Glover Park Group, said, "no."
Like Wolfson, she could not speak for all Clinton campaign associates.
Asked if she has contacted the DrudgeReport to seek a correction to its claim that the Clinton campaign is the source of the photo, she said, "No comment."
At least Tracy Sefl said "no comment".
ABC's next report will be some meatier.
"How many Hillary Clinton campaign operatives can dance on the head of a pin?"
by Mondoreb
image & idea: RidesAPaleHorse
source: Clinton to News: Why is anyone concerned?
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
UPDATES: Surprise FBI Raid Seizes 2 Tons of Ron Paul Dollars
Updates to our original story above. One from Italy where the writer makes a valid point. Not the one about George Bush being jealous: that's gratuitous Bush-bashing at its European finest.
The one about the FBI conducting the raid in the first place.
[NOTE: In the copy of the letter we saw from Liberty Coin, the Secret Service was involved in the raid also. However, this wasn't referenced in the following report.]
From URU Net, Italy:
"FBI Raids Liberty Dollar"Webmaster's comment: Thet the FBI carried out this raid suggests a political motive. Maybe Goerge Bush was jealous because nobody wants to put his face on coins (just toilet paper). If the Liberty Dollar was really an illegal form of currency, the raid would have been carried out by the Treasury Department and Secret Service.
This from the Western Standard:
"L. Ron Paul Supporters Raided by FBI"Why? Well, this company was minting coins and issuing paper notes claiming to be "dollars" and which, at least in the case of the coins, might easily have been taken by individuals for notes and coins issued by the Mint or the Federal Reserve.
Perhaps even more hillariously, given the intended market for these things, it appears that the minted gold, silver, and bronze coins were being told at markups of between 25% and 400% on the actual value of the precious metals contained therein. The only thing worse than a Goldbug is a stupid Goldbug and, apparently, these people were that in droves.
Now, Ron Paul's smarter supporters will attempt to distance themselves from such a disreputable operation. They can try and do that, of course - but, frankly, it will be difficult to with fifty pages of teeth gnashing from L. Ron's supporters about the raid. Moreover, any claim that Ron Paul didn't approve of or support this ought to be viewed skeptically in view of the fact that these people have been marketing these coins using his name and likeness since July at the very earliest.
More as they become available.
by Mondoreb
& Little Baby Ginn
[image: Libertydollars]
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Nearly 30 years ago someone sold some marijuana. The same person over the next several years gets into various scrapes involving drugs.
Fast forward to 2007 and that person loans a buddy, who happens to be a presidential candidate his jet to make some trips. If you're Fred Thompson, that means it's going to be spun like you're a criminal mastermind.
Such is the stuff that passes for scandal these days.
It's not enough that the person running for high office be vetted: everyone he knows, associated with, grew up with or has employed has to pass a test of character that most reporters would fail.
No wonder Fred Thompson waited so long to enter the election process. No doubt, he's shaking his head and sorry that his buddy's long-lost past got splashed on the pages of a Washington Post that apparently was in need of copy.
More guilt by association from the Washington Post:Republican presidential candidate Fred D. Thompson has been crisscrossing the country since early this summer on a private jet lent to him by a businessman and close adviser who has a criminal record for drug dealing.
So these days, it would seem the best candidate would be a hermit who'd been holed up in a cave for 30 years by himself. Then the favorite press tactic of hiring some out-of-work psychologist for a profile would be the only negative press you'd get. Or questions of your sexuality, if you're a somewhat reclusive bachelor, ala David Souter.
Thompson selected the businessman, Philip Martin, to raise seed money for his White House bid. Martin is one of four campaign co-chairmen and the head of a group called the "first day founders." Campaign aides jokingly began to refer to Martin, who has been friends with Thompson since the early 1990s, as the head of "Thompson's Airforce."
If all else fails, sling the familiar charge of "hypocrisy". From Talk LeftI'm all for former offenders participating in the political process and see no reason why Martin shouldn't be a player if he can. What I find amusing -- about both Thompson and Rudy -- is that they are former federal prosecutors who clearly don't share my views on the topic or support the rights of the criminally accused. Except, apparently, when it's their friends we're talking about.
Okay, maybe there's a little wryness in there. I do agree with the last point--and share the amusement.
That being said, it is a sad day to be a scandalmonger. If the candidate is clean, if his employees are clean, if his family is clean, what to do? Let's see who is associating with the candidate!
Since Thompson's from the GOP, the scandal bar is so low, the World Limbo Champion would be hard-pressed to make it under. Is the Washington Post implying that Thompson's going to be a drug dealer and needs advice on how to break into the market?
If everything one has done in his past is going to be splashed up as possible scandal bait, forget the people associated with the candidates.
Perhaps the Washington Post would like to start with its own employees first.
by Mondoreb & Little Baby Ginn
Back to Front Page.
