There are none so blind as those who will not see

NFHear-No-Evil-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil-26


Matthew Continetti:

See No Evil

If a campaign finance story is not about David Koch or Sheldon Adelson, do liberals care?

Consider the reaction to Kenneth Vogel’s important report on the winter meeting of the Democracy Alliance, the secretive organization of progressive millionaires and billionaires who finance an extraordinarily byzantine network of liberal foundations and Super PACs that operate with undisclosed “dark money.”

What reaction? Exactly. There wasn’t any.

The left-wing VIPs assembled at the luxury W Hotel across the street from the White House, but only Vogel reported on the story. The gathering did not merit inclusion in either the Washington Post or the New York Times, both of which have offices within blocks of the W, and both of which have devoted reams of newsprint to Mitt Romney’s donor retreats and various Koch-affiliated fundraising summits. Was New York Times campaign finance reporter Nicholas Confessore too busy appearing on NOW with Alex Wagner to cover the event?

More likely the media simply ignore data that complicate their preferred narrative. When it comes to the fraught relationship between money and politics, that narrative is as follows: Money in politics is corrupting only because rich businessmen trade campaign donations to Republicans for low taxes and fewer environmental regulations.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, the narrative continues, assisted such transactions by treating corporate and union PAC donations as protected speech. Republicans are better at fundraising because they are selfish, whereas Democrats are more concerned with the common good. And when Democrats abandon the principles of campaign finance reform, they do so with heavy hearts and the tragic sense that they could not compete otherwise.

The end.

Not only is this fairy tale nonsense, it is the biggest myth in American politics. Liberals use this just-so story to salve their consciences and reinforce their collective prejudices against conservatives. They cannot conceive that progressive donors engage in the exact sort of influence peddling they so lustily condemn.

This willful refusal to face facts leads to repression and confusion. A liberal whose understanding of the 2012 election derived from mainstream media and Team Obama emails would not know that the president’s campaign outraised and outspent Mitt Romney’s campaign by hundreds of millions of dollars. She would be unaware that three of the top five Super PACs were aligned with Democrats. Indeed the overall Republican financial advantage was minimal, a little more than 10 percent. That figure does not include the indirect spending by labor unions that is hard to track. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, has outraised the Republican Party in each of the last three election cycles. Remind me where the GOP’s huge money advantage lies?


His ability to raise vast sums of money was one of the original selling points on Obama. And that’s why they keep Nasty Nancy around too.

If the Democrats really cared about campaign finance reform they would have passed something back when they had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Why should they want to change the rules now? They’re winning!


corruption


About myiq2xu

Creepy-ass cracker
This entry was posted in Corruption, Disingenuous Democrats, Media, Media Zombies and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to There are none so blind as those who will not see

  1. piper says:

    The news?media new focus is on Ann Romney and how ‘devastated’ she is by Mitt’s loss. Anything but looking / investigating WH, Bonco, Dems.
    Now if the fog clears I can do one last bike ride in warm weather.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    I got a notice from the city a few weeks back that gave the dates for leaf pick-up. A couple times every fall they drive around with these big vacuum cleaners mounted on trucks, sucking up all the leaves from the gutter. We’re supposed to make sure the leaves are raked up into piles (in the gutter) so they can suck them up. We’re also supposed to make sure there aren’t any vehicles blocking the leaves either.

    If we don’t do it, we either have to let them rot on the lawn, hope they get blown over to a neighbor’s house or manually scoop them up and put them in the green waste bin. To put them in a green waste bin you gotta rake them up first anyway.

    So I looked at the chart and saw that the last pick-up days this year are today tomorrow and Wednesday in my part of town. That means that sometime between 7 am today and 4 pm Wednesday the truck will come by my house.

    The leaves weren’t all down last week, and I already raked up one load a couple weeks ago when they made their first pass. It rained all weekend. And it was windy as hell. 99% of the leaves are now down. 100% of them are wet and heavy.

    I knew that if I didn’t get out there are first light and rake my yard then the leaf truck would come by bright and early at 6:59 am. So I was out there in the cold, wet semi-darkness raking wet, soggy leaves.

    Mission accomplished!

    Now I’m betting the truck won’t get here until Wednesday afternoon at 3:45 pm.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    We’re saved!:

    Left-wing media has ‘issues’ with President Obama

    For the better part of four years, progressive media has had President Barack Obama’s back.

    Now that he’s won re-election, it is faced with a choice: Should the left continue always to play the loyal attack dog against the GOP, blaming the opposition at all hours of the news cycle for intransigence? Or, should it redirect some of that energy on the president, holding him to his promises and encouraging him to be a more outspoken champion of liberal causes?

    Already, there are rumblings of change.

    In the days and weeks following Obama’s victory, progressive voices, primarily in print media, have made efforts to push the president on key parts of the unfinished liberal agenda – including climate change, drone strikes, troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, civil liberties and gun control.

    The New York Times editorial page launched a series titled “Goals for a New Term,” calling on the president to implement stronger gun control laws and shutter Gitmo, which he had pledged to do during his first year in office. The tone of the editorials has been sharply critical: On guns, the editors suggested Obama lacked courage. On Guantanamo, they slammed his administration for deciding “to adopt the Bush team’s extravagant claims of state secrets and executive power, blocking any accountability for the detention and brutalization of hundreds of men at Guantánamo and secret prisons, and denying torture victims their day in court.”

    David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, sought to put similar pressure on Obama on the issue of climate change. “For the most part… the accumulating crisis of climate change has been treated as a third-tier issue,” Remnick wrote. “[I]n his acceptance speech, Obama mentioned climate change once again. Which is good, but, at this late date, he gets no points for mentioning. The real test of his determination will be a willingness to step outside the day-to-day tumult of Washington politics and establish a sustained sense of urgency.”

    Guest-hosting on MSNBC’s noon program, “Now With Alex Wagner,” The Nation’s Ari Melber criticized Obama’s lack of transparency in the use of drone strikes to target terrorists, including some American citizens. “That secretive approach is at odds with the commitment that Obama made during his first campaign for the presidency when he advocated the rights of due process for all, even accused terrorists,” Melber said. “Today, there’s no public process to determine whether the right people are targeted under the drone program, and drone attacks have increased substantially during Obama’s first term.”

    In conversations with POLITICO, some of the left’s most influential voices in media said that, with the concerns of re-election over, they intend to be more critical of the president’s performance and more aggressive in urging him to pursue a progressive agenda as the clock ticks on his last four years in office.

    “Liberals in the media are going to be tougher on Obama and more respectful at the same time,” Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker’s chief political commentator and a former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, told POLITICO. “He was the champion of our side, he vanquished the foe….. [but] now liberals don’t have to worry about hurting his chances for re-election, so they can be tougher in urging him to do what he should be doing.”

    “In a tight election, people were sensitive to anything that would jeopardize the president’s re-election,” said Melber. “There’s no question that a second term changes the center of gravity for any administration: There is no reasonable argument that criticism will result in the defeat of Barack Obama.”

    • tommy says:

      The progs are gonna overreach. Thats sort of inevitable. BHO’s hard ball during the present fiscal cliff crisis is indicative. Now you’ll get all the prog special interests clamoring for action – immigration reform, gun control and climate change, to name a few. The 2014 midterms are gonna be interesting.

      • Constance says:

        However the progressive “feminists” will be well behaved as usual because of course women’s issues and parity of representation for women should never be discussed until all men’s issues have been completely solved. And anyway the Democrat party doesn’t have issues with sexism.

    • DandyTiger says:

      Bwahahaha. Too late suckers. More on the kill lists, more drones, more corruption. He’s going to fuck you liberals up. You know why, because he’s not liberal. Duh. Turns out Romney was actually more liberal. You can’t fix stupid.

    • Simofish says:

      What fucking ever………..they are so far up his ass you’d need major surgery to remove them.

  4. foxyladi14 says:

    :)

  5. tommy says:

    According to a few RW blogs, HRC criticized Israel in a way that wasn’t expected. I don’t believe them. But if they’re right, I KNOW that WJC won’t be happy at all. Hes gonna whup HRC if its true. Hopefully, it ain’t.

    • angienc says:

      She clearly supported Israel (IMO) however she said that because of “warranted” suspicions with Hammas that Israel doesn’t have enough “empathy” towards Palestine (I’m paraphrasing but she did use the word “empathy”). The right’s problem with the statement is her use of empathy and more specifically as saying Israel lacked it/should have more of it toward Palestine.

      Personally, I think her problem was trying to straddle the fence too much– if Israel’s suspicions of Hammas are “warranted” then why, logically, should they need to have *more* empathy? The whole thing seems a little too much of wishy-washy politician-speak trying to have it both ways. But, of course, the entire situation is such a mess and sides are so divided it seems that you have to say Israel is completely right or Israel is completely wrong in order to have either the right or left happy with you — you can’t have both. Hillary was trying to make both happy & she failed.

  6. gram cracker says:

    Nader isn’t one of my favorites. I think Nader probably cost Gore the 2000 election, but look at how he grades Obama. Will the LSM pickup on this and get out of Obama’s bed.

    NADER: WAR CRIMINAL OBAMA WORSE THAN BUSH

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/12/02/Nader-War-Criminal-Obama-Worse-Than-Bush

    • angienc says:

      Will the MSM pick up on it? NO.

      Nadar should have spoken up *before* the election — so he can kiss my ass even more now than in 2000.

  7. HELENK says:

    will there be any investigation of the voting, that gave backtrack 100% or the vote in some districts, where there were more votes than people? when that happens i might believe the msm grew a set and got some integrity, till then yawn the same old same old BS.
    the fact that voting is becoming meaningless in this country seems to have escaped their notice

  8. HELENK says:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/2/inside-the-beltway-drones-for-journalists/

    this is not a good thing
    drones for journalists, can just see the backtrack press invading everywhere
    1984 and then some

  9. HELENK says:

    http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121203008-egyptian-silence.html

    so where is the left on this ??????

    backtrack’s BFF morsi and the new egyptian consttitute
    reinstates slavery. nothing from backtrack

  10. HELENK says:

    should reaad
    constitution

  11. HELENK says:

    http://freebeacon.com/flailing-fema/

    obama’s fema and crickets from the msm

    people out of their homes and not heat in freezing weather due to sandy. fema says no trailers available. 92 empty fema trailers sitting in PA

Comments are closed.