43 Comments

• 1. searp  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  I expect you to be vastly outvoted in 2008. Mitt proved that money isn’t determinative.

  Interesting point about rich liberals. I assume that there are more rich conservatives (more to conserve, etc), but I am probably just untutored. I suppose they aren’t pouring money into the McCain campaign because… they think it is a bad investment?

• 2. John Ryan  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm

  Why is it that the rich Republicans don’t want to give John McCain more money ?
  In 2000 and 2004 when the Republicans vastly outspent the Democrats did they “buy the election”?
  Do you think that many or any people who might have voted for McCain changed their minds because of the Times article ?
  Do you think that times article or right wing talk radio hurt McCain more ?

• 3. Mark Noonan  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm

  John,

  Actually, we GOPers were outspent heavily in 2004. Most of the really rich people are actually liberal, not conservative - you see, really rich people can afford a liberal lifestyle, while most working stiffs have to keep to a conservative lifestyle.

• 4. brett michaels  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm

  Most of the really rich people are actually liberal, not conservative

  Mark can you post a link to the study that stated that fact?
  I Goggled it, Lived it, and Yahooed it and couldnt find that study anywhere.

  Thanks

• 5. Darva Conger  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  “Most of the really rich people are actually liberal, not conservative.”

  Sooooo, as the nation becomes more wealthy the numbers of Liberals will increase. Sounds good to me.

• 6. Kahn  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  brett - anti-liberal information doesn’t last long in the search engines. Google, Yahoo, most of the rest are run by extremely liberal (and often very rich) liberals. They control your access to information. Scary, isn’t it?

• 7. bongoman  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm

  Kahn, but but but market forces should prevent that happening, no?

• 8. Almiranta  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm

  As usual, the knee-jerk radical Lefties are trying to find something to say, and as usual they fail. The thread is about the surge of support for McCain, including financial support, in reaction to the transparently biased smear tactics employed by a once-great newspaper.

  The Usual Suspects try to make into something it isn’t, and fall back on their snotty psuedo-comebacks.

  Do any of you disagree that the Times descent into the politics of personal destruction has backfired, and that McCain has actually come out ahead? Because that’s what the thread is about, dummies.

  I know there were ample references, in 2004, to the fact that although George w. Bush had brought in far more money to his campaign than had Kerry, the vast majority of Bush’s contributions were for $45.00 or less, while Kerry’s contributions were far fewer and far larger.

  The logical conclusion is the realization that those who supported Kerry were fewer, but a lot richer, while Bush had the support of people who could only send in less than $50.00 but who wanted to help him win.

  The responses of the Lefties here have always been pretty feeble, usually depending on name-calling and quoting from radical Left smear sources like the Daily Kos, but lately they are just pathetic. It’s as if there is some compulsion to say something–ANYTHING–no matter how abjectly stupid they sound doing it.

  But as we already know, from long experience, that they are incapable of contributing to any rational discussion, there is no need to try to convince us otherwise. We’ve got history to prove us right.

  I suggest that Darva and brett, in particular (regarding this thread anyway) heed the old adage that it is better to keep one’s mouth shut and risk being thought a fool than to comment and prove it.

  Hey, Spook and Kahn and you other conservatives out there—-how long has it been since any of our resident trolls has actually had anything to say? Contributed to the discussion? Even manged to follow the discussion? These guys are just lame.

• 9. phnx  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm

  Anyone remember the trolls gloating because Hillary had a boatload of cash? Her campaign is in trouble, she’s spending millions per month on consultants and still loosing. In the meantime, conservatives have kept their powder dry, waiting for the main event.

  BTW:

  Hope is not a strategy.

• 10. Christian Wright  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm

  NYT has a habit of sitting on stories that hurt Republican candidates. They knew about the illegal wiretaps in violation of FISA prior to the 2004 elections and told nobody.

  They have known about McCain for months and had no intention of publishing the story until they learned that another paper was going to scoop them.

• 11. plainjane  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  McCain gains money after story hits the press is no surprise here. This happens so frequently with the Republican Party you just know this a RNC set up and the lemmings lapped it up. There will be plenty more of these stories before the election. Republicans can’t function without something to hate. They are void of ideas and need hate in order to rally the base. President Bush as leader of the Republican Party has left it in such disarray that fear mongering and hate is all they have left. It is nothing more than a “Bucket List” of hate. Need extra cash or votes, just pull one of the following out of the bucket and say woes is me they are picking on our way of life again; media, anti-war crowd, successful women, Gays, working poor, Gay marriage, anti- war crowd, anti- assault weapon crowd, environmentalist, anti-oil drillers in Alaska and on it goes.

  Limbaugh and Hannity spent weeks bashing McCain. Their clown Guiliani didn’t win. How can they now support McCain without losing dollars and credibility with their listeners? Easy when you are a Repug, just have a bigger boggy man than McCain. You guessed it, the media.

• 12. Casper  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm

  “Actually, we GOPers were outspent heavily in 2004. Most of the really rich people are actually liberal, not conservative - you see, really rich people can afford a liberal lifestyle, while most working stiffs have to keep to a conservative lifestyle.”

  http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index_2004.asp

  According to the figures at the site above Bush actually beat Kerry by about $39 million.

  “I know there were ample references, in 2004, to the fact that although George w. Bush had brought in far more money to his campaign than had Kerry, the vast majority of Bush’s contributions were for $45.00 or less, while Kerry’s contributions were far fewer and far larger.”

  Actually Almiranta, the opposite is true. Kerry had more contributors for less money.

  http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp

• 13. Kahn  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  bongoman, you’d hope so. But apparently liberals want money AND control.

  I’ve mentioned this before. Many times I’ll search for information I know was on the web - some I’d used before. But searches bring up liberal web sites and the information I’m looking for is nowhere to be found unless I saved a link myself.

  Together with liberal control of 90% of the media - it is a very frightening development.

  Has anyone else noticed this?

• 14. Kahn  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm

  As to the New York Times - hate and innuendo are not a healthy place for a commercial news reporting organization to be. Remember, this is the same group of people who gave discount rates to the “General Petraus / General Betray us” ad.

  With circulation and profit falling, their motivation can ONLY be ideology. Remember how shabbily they treated they unions? They are hypocrites along with being haters.

• 15. Uncommon  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  Kahn - you become increasingly paranoid the further into the election season we get. Conspiracy theories really aren’t the norm for the Grand Ole Party but it appears many of you here seem to be more susceptible to them than ever.

  Alma - you are nothing more than a hypocrite. Your post was more of topic than any preceeding it and then you fill it with name-calling and rhetoric and say that that is all the liberal posts consist of. Take a look in the mirror Alma. And if you had even read any of the “liberal” posts they were simply refuting the smear statement of “buying an election” that Mark raised against them.

• 16. Kahn  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  plainjane - you think Rush was for Guiliani? You really don’t pay attention much do you?

  You accuse us of hate. Sure, whatever. But here we are in a blog about unsubstantiated and anonymous innuendo published about a candidate that the Times endorsed AFTER having this story.

  Just to define the game for you.

• 17. mikeinportc  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm

  “their motivation can ONLY be ideology”

  Naw , they didn’t want to get scooped. Professional pride (sort of , misplaced). They did endorse him. If it was just to get McCain and the GOP, they would have done it sooner, when it could keep him from the nomination, or later in October . Then again , sometimes people do irrational things ,or what seems to be irrational to the outside observer . ??????

  McCain’s team didn’t help either , with the lie about his Paxson meeting misstatement. Should have just said he forgot about it .
  The whole thing is missing some pieces.

• 18. Kahn  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  Uncommon, never heard from you before. I’ve been saying this for some time. I haven’t really read this anywhere, it’s just something I’ve noticed myself. And the fact you don’t like me doesn’t make me wrong.

  Look at the removal last week of a Google News source dedicated to exposing corruption at the UN. He was quietly added again after all the fuss.

  But here I am with an actual recent example. And here you are smelling of Elderberries

• 19. Diana Powe  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  Almiranta’s contribution to Mark’s file on how hate-filled and uncivil the left is:
  

  Hey, Spook and Kahn and you other conservatives out there—-how long has it been since any of our resident trolls has actually had anything to say? Contributed to the discussion? Even manged (sic) to follow the discussion? These guys are just lame.

  Nicely done.

  Senator McCain has a serious money problem of his own making. Yesterday, the chairman of the Federal Election Commission wrote the Senator and told him that he can’t just inform the FEC that he wants to opt out of the presidential public financing system which would severely limit how much he can spend between now and August. First, the FEC doesn’t have enough commissioners for a quorum. Second, the Senator borrowed a million dollars last month from a Maryland bank with an assurance to them that if he dropped out of the race that he would reapply for matching public money and use those as collateral for the loan. The whole thing is a mess for the Senator and even if he weren’t ultimately charged with a crime for exceeding the spending limit the fact that his name is on the law and he’s trying to weasel out of it makes him look pretty unethical.

• 20. Kahn  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm

  “Hey, Spook and Kahn and you other conservatives out there—-how long has it been since any of our resident trolls has actually had anything to say?”

  Sure. Whatever.

  Liberals are OK with killing babies. Want my guns. Want my money. Want to buy the loyalty of blacks and Hispanics. Want to be isolationist. Want to kill freed trade. Want to control information and political speech. Want to disengage from a vital struggle in the mid-East and essentially seize defeat from the jaws of victory.

  During the last election cycle Democrats attacked, ransacked, shot at, burned, and vandalized Republican offices and vehicles.

  Your celeb of the moment has no plan. No specifics. Stupid examples. And speaks very well.

• 21. Kahn  |  February 23rd, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  mikeinportc - They had already been scooped. The story has no sources and makes no specific claims. It does not include exculpatory information that is known to be in their possesion.

  It revisits the Keating Five episode without mentioning that he was cleared. Without mentioning that the Senates own lawyer says he was included solely because he was Republican and otherwise the Keating “Four” would have all been Democrats.

  Scooped?

• 22. Gozer the Carpathian  |  February 24th, 2008 at 12:08 am

  *Shakes head*

  Oi oi… the same old same old lines repeated again and again. *Sigh*

  As for the topic, I find it funny that the guy getting all this money is the guy who tried to REMOVE money from politics.

  I still don’t like McCain and no bit of pandering to the base or attacks from the media are going to get me to change my mind.

• 23. Kahn  |  February 24th, 2008 at 12:31 am

  Gozer, I agree with McCain on more issues than Obama or Clinto. Or Huckabee for that matter.

• 24. Ricorun  |  February 24th, 2008 at 12:35 am

  Visiting this blog is getting to be like visiting the inside of a Wurlitzer. But I suppose it’s election season. And as such we’re supposed to all act like Maytag repairmen who really get into their jobs — when it’s on the spin cycle.

• 25. Gozer the Carpathian  |  February 24th, 2008 at 1:48 am

  True I’ll give you that Kahn. Doesn’t mean I”m going to like him. :)

• 26. Freedom1  |  February 24th, 2008 at 1:53 am

  Gozer, but are you going to vote for McCain? I will. The socialist/communist alternatives are far worse than McCain is.

• 27. bongoman  |  February 24th, 2008 at 2:40 am

  Freedom1, who’s the communist candidate? Not aware of anyone who’s planning to nationalise any means of production.

• 28. TiredofLibBullShit  |  February 24th, 2008 at 5:47 am

  BONG-MAN,

  “who’s planning to nationalise any means of production.”

  Uh, which two candidates want “to take those profits….. ” (from oil companies) and “NATIONALIZE health care”?

  Don’t bother answering fool.

• 29. phnx  |  February 24th, 2008 at 6:29 am

  Fiscal responisbility? This says it all:

  2008 Earmarks:

  Clinton:$342,403,455
  Obama:$91,421,220
  McCain: $ 0

• 30. plainjane  |  February 24th, 2008 at 6:49 am

  ….. you think Rush was for Guiliani? You really don’t pay attention much do you?16. Kahn | February 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  You are correct, it was Hannity that suckled up to Guiliani and not Limbaugh. But the point is made that many in wingnut radio and on Fox News have a problem. On many issues McCain is farther to the left than many Democrats, illegal immigration being one of them. How can they directly support and raise cash for someone like McCain day after day? They don’t. For the future of the Neocon movement and bring in the cash, they support McCain by getting the lemmings to focus on “NYT straw men” rather than McCain’s liberalism.

• 31. lilly06  |  February 24th, 2008 at 8:20 am

  Hmmm. Noone watches Fox News and reads the New York Post lately I guess. You’re right, its only ‘liberals’ who have a bias press supporting them.

  John,

  Actually, we GOPers were outspent heavily in 2004. Most of the really rich people are actually liberal, not conservative - you see, really rich people can afford a liberal lifestyle, while most working stiffs have to keep to a conservative lifestyle.

  Where is the proof for the above Mark? I’m sure that that the research for that comment came from the ‘Mark Noonan’s dream world statistical lab’.

  What a load of rubbish

• 32. Kahn  |  February 24th, 2008 at 11:47 am

  Again, the attacks on FOX. Not being libneral does not make you conservative. But even IF, IF FOX is conservative. Isn’t it OK to have ONE conservative network? What OTHER network is conservative. Hell, what other network isn’t liberal?

  At least FOX never attacked a Democrat with forged documents. (Like CBS did Bush). At least FOX doesn’t coordinate with the GOP (Like PBS and NPR have).

  This shrill and sustained ignorance on your part is getting old. I’m sick of it. GFY - I’ll give my money and time to defeating you and your kind and we’ll let the people speak in November.

  Lets see how that surrender abroad and socialize home message play out for you.

• 33. Almiranta  |  February 24th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  Diana, I merely asked if anyone could point me to an actual IDEA or furthering of rational discussion, coming from our resident Lefties. Don’t try to deflect that into a whine about me being “uncivil” or “hate-filled”.

  We try to have rational discussions, about real issues, and you and your ilk see this site as a place where you are welcome to do hit-and-run attacks on various people of the Right, whether or not those people are part of the attempted discussion, whether or not your (plural ‘your’) comments are relevant to the thread, whether or not you actually have something of value to contribute.

  There are people in this country who really do want to identify problems, address them, and find answers. I do not find you, or any of the other Lefty bloggers here, appearing to belong to this group.

  Look at the posts here, on this thread, from the Left. It’s attack attack attack, insult insult insult.

  You are all wasting your valuable time by posting. Once we see one of your names, we already KNOW what you are going to say. Janie is going to dredge up her favorite word, “Repug” and there are the mandatory swipes at conservatives–but no content.

  Therefore, I stand by my comment: “how long has it been since any of our resident trolls has actually had anything to say? Contributed to the discussion? Even manged (sic) to follow the discussion?”

  And if you want to whine about that, whine away. The thing is, once we know where you sit (on the side of the radical Left) we really don’t care that much about where you stand on any issue—if you even bother to pretend to address it at all. It’s all the same old same old, just more rabid Lefty indulgence in the politics of hate.

• 34. ada  |  February 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

  “(though, truth be told, I expect us to be vastly outspent in 2008 - rich liberals are pouring the money in, determined to buy an election for liberalism)”

  obama’s campaign up to this point has been mainly from a huge number of people, donating amounts less than $100-200 dollars. not deep pocket liberals. i think we can expect to see him continue to build this base — doesn’t that undermine your claim that liberals are determined to ‘buy’ the election?

• 35. BARRASSO  |  February 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  Kahn

  I think the problem you are having with things you have seen and agreed with vanishing from the internet is easily proven false in this very thread. It all has to do with making shit up, wingnuts have problems with reality not conforming to their mindset so they make an alternate in their heads, this alternate has its own facts which they spout on wingnut blogs. These ‘facts’ are easily refuted by liberal blogs, then the wingnut blogs are embarrassed so they remove their made up facts, which leaves the facts only on liberal blogs that point to them and laugh.

  That very thing happened in this thread maybe you can spot it. Here I’ll help,

  Almiranta

  “I know there were ample references, in 2004, to the fact that although George w. Bush had brought in far more money to his campaign than had Kerry, the vast majority of Bush’s contributions were for $45.00 or less, while Kerry’s contributions were far fewer and far larger.”

  You may read this and think Almir knows actual facts and those facts you feel good about because it makes the enemy “Liberals” look bad, you may remember this “fact” later and try to find it but cannot because it is false and easily proven so. Therefore the internet is now controlled by liberals, just like newspapers, the AP, television, magazines, graffiti, and all other means of communication except Rush Limbaugh.

• 36. Mark Noonan  |  February 24th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  lilly06,

  Its common knowledge - if you can’t bestir yourself to gather basic information before entering a debate, then that is your problem.

• 37. BARRASSO  |  February 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

  Or you can make up facts them when they cannot be proven you just say it’s common knowledge.

• 38. Mark Noonan  |  February 24th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  Barrasso,

  Or you can just get yourself informed - and when you total it up by parties and then add in the varied 527s, you can see that the GOP/conservative side was outspent by the Democrat/liberal side by at least $200 million in 2004.

• 39. lilly06  |  February 24th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

  lilly06,

  Its common knowledge - if you can’t bestir yourself to gather basic information before entering a debate, then that is your problem.

  ————————————————–
  Mark Noonan:
  Its common knowledge based on non-fact. Yeah that’s a good one Mark.

• 40. BARRASSO  |  February 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  really rich people can afford a liberal lifestyle, while most working stiffs have to keep to a conservative lifestyle.

  What does that mean? This is just gibberish, I thought stereotypical liberals were unwashed hippies on welfare who spend their government checks on abortions. Now it’s suddenly expensive to live the ‘liberal lifestyle.’

• 41. Almiranta  |  February 24th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

  I remember discussions, probably on B4B as well as in the national media, about the huge number of people who not only donated to a poltiical campaign for the first time but who donated in small amounts, and how Bush had such a large proportion of his campaign funding coming from these small donors.

  If I come across a reference, I’ll post it. But because I haven’t doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It was the topic of a lot of discussion, because it went against the conventional wisdom that Republicans were the fat cats and the Dems were the party of the little people. A lot of attention was paid to the huge amount of high-dollar fundraising by the Dem elites.

  I also remember—-but have no intention of trying to look up a reference—- the fact that the footsoldiers of the Dem party, those who were staying way out in the Valley because that’s the only place they could afford hotel rooms, had to walk blocks out of their way to catch the buses taking them on their long commute, as the limos lined up to carry the elites were occupying what had been bus space.

  But if you all are so deeply offended by having to read stuff you don’t like, well, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  Just stop with the campaign to flood the site with inane garbage like “…I thought stereotypical liberals were unwashed hippies on welfare who spend their government checks on abortions.”

  A typical tactic of the radical Left is to just be so insulting, so hostile, and so ready to attack, that some people will just back away. I just consider the source.

  And I’ll take into consideration another favorite Lefty tactic—that of trying to deflect attention away from something they find threatening by using any means possible to change the subject.

  Which must be why you Lefties are so determined to talk about darned near anything rather than address the topic of the thread, which is the shoddy “journalism” of the NTY and their transparent and feeble effort to slime a Republican candidate.

  Their effort was so pathetic, as well as so unethical, that janie had to pretend it was really just another one of those GOP conspiracy things, as even she couldn’t find a way to apologize for it.

  And THAT’s the story……

• 42. Yakki.PsD  |  February 25th, 2008 at 3:16 am

  “…I thought stereotypical liberals were unwashed hippies on welfare who spend their government checks on abortions.”

  Hey Almilranta,why lie about it? It’s been the constant mantra of the RW for at least as long as I can remember.

  Liberals are all on welfare. Liberals are “kooks” who want rich peoples money,etc..

  Let’s not try revisionist history. You want some quotes pulled from other blogs with links to go with so you can see yourself? I can go to one site alone and get you plenty.

• 43. Diana Powe  |  February 26th, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  Deleted - off topic.