Going all populist is all the rage these days.
Which is a fine thing if you’re running for Senate in Nevada, or your supporters are a bunch of out-of-work manufacturing workers.
Not if your main support is, say, Wall Street plutocrats:
“Chuck says, ‘I’ve been there to help you,’ ” says one lobbyist. “Well, that’s when we were playing stickball. Now we’re in a cage match and he’s hiding under his desk.”
Schumer’s critics—who accuse him of adopting a populist streak so he can be the next majority leader—have no hope of unseating him, but they can take revenge in other ways, writes Smith in New York magazine. That includes getting behind Harold Ford Jr. as he tries to oust Kirsten Gillibrand—”a virtual ward of Schumer’s”—from her Senate seat. “A lot of what’s fueling the Ford thing is Chuck’s donors, who are furious at him,” says a political consultant. “They feel he’s walked away from them.”
Cool.
But I’m confused; I didn’t think corporations had any influence over Democrat politicians before the Supreme Court scuppered McCain/Feingold. What happened?
Corporations had influence before the recent Supreme Court; it was called lobbying. Now this might confuse you because that influence may not always have been as strong as the influence over Republicans.
Now, there may not be any need for lobbyists, thanks to the Supreme Court; they can just hand out that money to all of the politicians directly, bypassing the middle man.
Kirsten Gillibrand is a virtual person, not a real human being? She must not be the only one – that would explain both the not-a-color-found-in-nature orange of Boehner………
Just kidding…but only about pretending to believe that you might really be confused about any of this.
No sarcasm detector what-so-ever?
Shoulda been pegged.
Wet Dog missed the [ sarcasm ] tag because she is too busy searching for link to O’Keefe charges.
Increasingly, my mental image of DG is Margaret Dumont.
“thanks to the Supreme Court; they can just hand out that money to all of the politicians directly . . .”
Nope, still prohibited. Citizens United wasn’t about that.
Nope, still prohibited. Citizens United wasn’t about that.
Don’t confuse Wet Dog with context!
Well, with all the K-Street lobbyists taking jobs in the Administration the middle-man was already an endangered species.
reading DG’s post reminds me of a classic media/liberal (one in the same I know) line, “never let the facts get in the way of a good story” 😉
“Increasingly, my mental image of DG…”
Sure, Mr. D, but I was thinking a different Marx.
Sure, Mr. D, but I was thinking a different Marx.
It sure the heck can’t be Harpo.
“Which is a fine thing if you’re running for Senate in Nevada”
Or Massachusetts – I mean, not that there’s any hypocrisy in your white-washing or anything.
And Mitch – the word is Democratic, not Democrat Politicians – Democrat is a noun, I would think you know that, much like you know full well that Democrats have been for sale almost as much as Republicans. McCain – Feingold was ineffective – which is likely to be the case for ANY type of election reform which puts limits on contributions because corporations will simply find their way around such limits.
Here you go just plain crabby – the complaint against O’Keefe and Giles:
http://americasright.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/conway5.pdf.
Giles is soliciting money for her legal defense at the Liberty Legal Institute, and has been sending out mass mailings soliciting donations.
I’d be happy to find you the legal defense fund for O’Keefe, if you can’t do it for yourself.
I’m sure there are still plenty of lobbyists still left to take money as middle men, once the McCain Palin campaign was over.
BTW Mitch, do you consider someone like Tom Tancredo requiring literacy and fluency tests to be a good Republican? Is he representing the populist movement, the non-condescending to the poor movement, or is that the part where he is standing up for the rights of the common man?
Dog Gone-
The link you provide is dead.
I assume that it’s the civil action by an acorn employee in Pennsylvania named Conway. The link is mentioned in that context here:
http://www.webcommentary.com/php/PrintSmArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=100122
Anyone can sue anyone. The lawsuit alleges that Giles and O’Keefe broke Pennsylvania Law by surreptitiously recording an ACORN employee, but the suit was not brought by ACORN and this ‘crime’ is not being prosecuted by the local DA as a criminal matter. I suppose that it is possible that a grand jury is looking it.
Both sides in the suit are subject to discovery, which A) should make proceedings interesting, if it isn’t settled out of court and B) Explains why ACORN itself did not take part in the suit.
Again, this is not a criminal complaint. Small beer.
Both sides in the suit are subject to discovery, which A) should make proceedings interesting, if it isn’t settled out of court and B) Explains why ACORN itself did not take part in the suit.
Again, this is not a criminal complaint. Small beer.
Correct, Terry. This is a SLAPP suit.
Terry, I’m sorry the link didn’t work for you – it worked for me just fine.
ACORN is one of the plaintiffs, therefore ACORN is in fact bringing suit, and this is not as I understand it the only suit, and the amounts in question are not really ‘small beer’.
Further, I don’t know the state law of all of the various locations where O’Keefe and Giles did their videos, but in at least two police reports have been filed, other litigation is pending, and there may or may not be subsequent criminal actions. I seem to remember that Linda Tripp was being criminally prosecuted at some point for example for similar offenses in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, although it was eventually dropped. Some jurisdictions work more slowly than others.
The footage shot by O’Keefe and Giles includes extensive faked visual images as well as faked voice overs replacing the original verbal exchanges. This raises major questions as to the legitimacy of the content, and makes it fiction not journalism. Presumably none of you are accusing CBS and Couric of falsifying any of the content of the Palin interviews, in comparison.
The parts of the original improper recording supposedly show the employees of ACORN properly answering legitimate questions (not the prostitution / underage kids stuff), which is somewhat supported by the fact that no paperwork was filled out, as is usually done with legitimate appointments. The ACORN (former) employees claim that the things which appear on the tape were statements made as part of goofing around instigated by O’Keefe and Giles, which is supposed to be clear when the rest of the circumstances of the recording are shown in full context.
There is at least one investigation (NY, if I recall correctly) into the activities of ACORN that is seeking the uncut video and likely to get it, so I think it is pretty safe to look at this as a ‘when’ the uncut tape is available more than ‘if’ it becomes available. Until more is known, purely on the basis of learning that O’Keefe and Giles falsified much of the ACORN recording, I’m going to wait and see, suspending my judgement of both parties as to who is right or wrong – or maybe just both sides are wrong.
ACORN is not “bringing suit”. ACORN is not one of the plaintiffs:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KATHERINE CONWAY-RUSSELL, :
Plaintiff : Civil Action No. 09-
:
v. ::
JAMES E. O’KEEFE, III, :
HANNAH GILES, :
Defendants :
You keep using words like ‘falsified’ and ‘fake’. What do you mean by this? Obviously O’Keefe and Giles are not really pimp & whore, so I suppose you could say on that basis that the tapes were ‘fake’. As for the voice-overs, O’Keefe (& Breitbart, I believe) say that they did this to avoid lawsuits like Conway’s (again ACORN is _not_ a plaintiff in the suit).
If editing a taped interview to promote a narrative is ‘faking a tape’, 60 minutes has a lot to answer for.
Dog Gone, the link was bad because the period at the end of the sentence is included in the clickable URL.
purely on the basis of learning that O’Keefe and Giles falsified much of the ACORN recording,
OK, where did you “learn” this, and what did you “learn” that they “falsified?”
Specifics, please.
My 60 Minutes ref may have been more appropriate than I thought. Turns out 60 Minutes has been subject to legal action (aka sued by the subjects of its stories) many, many times. O’Keefe & Giles — just like Wallace and Safer!
Ahhhhhhhh !— Terry, the link I provided was for the Baltimore MD suit, not the Pennsylvania suit, that’s where we have different references!
Here is the same Maryland complaint on Scribd: scribd.com/doc/20148646/ACORN-v-O’Keefe-Complaint
Oh, the Maryland complaint . . . another civil suit. It will be interesting to see how that progresses. The discovery phase should be fascinating.
Plaintiffs are listed as Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now,Inc. (referred to as ACORN throughout the rest of the complaint); Tonja Thompson, and Shera Williams.
Mitch to answer you question I researched quite a bit of the ACORN recordings when I was preparing the recent piece I did on O’Keefe and Senator Landrieu’s office. I will be happy to go back into my research for the specifics, which include forensic analysis of the recordings. Apparently O’Keefe has not denied having falsified the footage btw – he admits it. There is also an independent investigation performed by a former state AG, comparisons between the video and transcripts, and the background on the other pending litigation.
O’Keefe is no more credible than the crook who tried to peddle the hoax video that claimed to be of Vice President Biden’s daughter snorting coke, except that at least some of the ACORN footage was shot in various ACORN offices. Which reminds me – another factor which argues against the footage by O’Keefe being legit is apparently he confuses two different ACORN organizations as if they are one entity (entirely separate 502c3s) in his video.
I’m sure Terry can provide you as many sources as I can, and perhaps his links will work better. (Yes, Mitch, I’ll get back to you with the sources – you know me too well to think I’d fudge this.)
O’Keefe is no more credible than the crook who tried to peddle the hoax video that claimed to be of Vice President Biden’s daughter snorting coke, except that at least some of the ACORN footage was shot in various ACORN offices.
And of course, led to ACORN firing the workers involved. Other than that, yes, exactly the same as the hoax, and no credibility at all.
And knowing what I knwo about the case, I’m going to suspect that you (and whomever you’re getting your talking points from) are substituting “Falsified” for “Edited”.
Terry wrote “oh, the Maryland complaint”…..
Terry, in Maryland, this is also potentially a felony. It remains to be seen if it will be prosecuted or not, but there is at least the possibility of felony prosecution.
Terry, in Maryland, this is also potentially a felony. It remains to be seen if it will be prosecuted or not, but there is at least the possibility of felony prosecution.
Oh, the “recording” allegation? Pffft.
Maryland is one of seven states that require all parties to a recording to give consent. It’s an archaic law that, as it happens, has been prosecuted almost entirely for political reasons (it was used by a Democrat DA to try to shut up Linda Tripp, for example, and has been threatened for O’Keefe, but oddly it seems never to have been used against people recording Republicans).
Which is, perhaps, why Maryland isn’t and won’t indict on that charge; because they know that a world of legal and political hell will rain down on them. Far better to leave it dangling out there to keep the Democrat troops’ morale up.
No Mitch, I was not substituting the word falsified for edited. I’m talking about inserting footage into the video in a way intended to look as if it were filmed in the ACORN office that was not filmed at the time of the rest of the footage, or in that office. O’Keefe freely admits that he inserted footage of himself in the pimp outfit, but that he did not in fact wear the pimp outfit into the ACORN offices.
FAKED footage. Completely, intentionally FAKED footage.
I hope that is sufficiently clear; it is NOT something that so far as I am aware that 60 minute has ever done, or CBS News with Couric either. In the recent 60 Minutes episode done entirely to commemorate the career of the late Don Hewitt at 60 Minutes there was some discussion of why they no longer do those kinds of pieces anymore. Terry – did you find anyone winning their lawsuits against 60 Minutes by the way? I haven’t researce 60 Minutes at all, but my impression was that they were honest in their secretive filming era – by honest, I mean that they didn’t FAKE anything.
Ditto altering the audio by removing what was said, and doing a voice over with different words.
The workers involved were a couple of part timers who were properly kicked to the curb for behaving unprofessionally. The subsequent independent investigation advised ACORN that they needed to improve both their training, and leadership / supervision of staff, but did not find that the staff acted in any way that was illegal — which differs significantly from the appearance on the video.
No Mitch, I was not substituting the word falsified for edited.
Not intentionally, perhaps. But while the editing that O’Keefe did do would have gotten him a sound dressing-down from an editor or news producer, it was perfectly acceptable for what it was – a prank intended for video – provided that he didn’t actually falsify the actual actions by ACORN staff.
I’m talking about inserting footage into the video in a way intended to look as if it were filmed in the ACORN office that was not filmed at the time of the rest of the footage, or in that office.
Ah. You mean dinking about with context, like Michael Moore does, and gets Academy awards for?
O’Keefe freely admits that he inserted footage of himself in the pimp outfit, but that he did not in fact wear the pimp outfit into the ACORN offices.
Irrelevant.
FAKED footage. Completely, intentionally FAKED footage.
Unless you can show that the ACORN workers advice was “FAKED”, really, you haven’t a leg to stand on.
I hope that is sufficiently clear; it is NOT something that so far as I am aware that 60 minute has ever done,
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!
Sorry, DG. Any faith in the integrity of the mainstream media is misplaced. Distrust; then verify.
or CBS News with Couric either. In the recent 60 Minutes episode done entirely to commemorate the career of the late Don Hewitt at 60 Minutes there was some discussion of why they no longer do those kinds of pieces anymore.
Did the estimable Mr. Hewitt mention that the biggest reason was because a couple of bloggers and a few thousand ordinary citizens dealt him and his bloated, arrogant production’s credibility a blow that it still hasn’t recovered, and may never recover, from?
I’ll bet not!
Terry – did you find anyone winning their lawsuits against 60 Minutes by the way? I haven’t researce 60 Minutes at all, but my impression was that they were honest in their secretive filming era – by honest, I mean that they didn’t FAKE anything.
I repeat: Bwahahahahahahahaha!!
Seriously. I’d trust a crack whore on laughing gas before I trusted “Sixty Minutes”.
The workers involved were a couple of part timers who were properly kicked to the curb for behaving unprofessionally. The subsequent independent investigation advised ACORN that they needed to improve both their training, and leadership / supervision of staff, but did not find that the staff acted in any way that was illegal
Largely because Pennsylvania, New York and California don’t have laws about advising people how to set up brothels.
— which differs significantly from the appearance on the video.
Er, nope. Merely in the legal circumstances.
It’s a felony in PA as well Doggone.
The Maryland AG’s office is currently investigating ACORN. Turns out it has been operating without a license in the sate for at least two years. Also no one has ever been successfully prosecuted for breaking MD’s anti-wiretapping law.
ACORN has much more to lose from any AG investigation in Maryland than O’Keefe and Giles do.
Speculating about a felony prosecution is just that — speculation.
And Dog Gone — 60 Minutes used to fake stuff all the time. You know how they would show the subject being interviewed and then cut to Safer or Wallace nodding sagely at an appropriate time? They only had one camera. All those ‘cut ins’ were fakes, filmed later, or sometimes earlier.
Totally fake.
My goodness. Doggie seems to be going out of her way to defend an organization that has sought to facilitate illegal alien child prostitution. Good for you, Doggie. Keep up the good work. I hope all the other Democratics follow suit.
(It’s so cute that Peev still gets peevish over dropping that “ic” from Democrat party.)
You know how they would show the subject being interviewed and then cut to Safer or Wallace nodding sagely at an appropriate time? Totally fake
Well, it’s sorta fake, but it’s done to cover edit splices; “jump-cuts” (cutting from a shot of a person to that same person at a different time on the same set) are a big no-no in TV news. Covering jump cuts with cutaways, usually filmed on the scene of the interview at the time of the interview, is a broadly accepted practice. And that is ALL one is supposed to fake; you may recall in Broadcast News the fracas that ensured when the William Hurt character faked a tear for a cutaway during a story. (This is, of course, how journalists see themselves. Would they fuss about it today? I dunno).
Of course, it’s predicated on the idea that the editing doesn’t misrepresent what was said.
And it’s predicated on the idea that one is practicing journalism. O’Keefe was not – it was a prank that happened to serve a journalistic purpose, inasmuch as quibbling about cutaways and “did he really wear the pimp suit” aside, he was right. ACORN workers advised him on how to set up a whorehouse for underage illegal immigrants.
Kermit I wonder why libs go out of their way to attack O’Keefe and Giles. They have the sympathy of a public which increasingly sees the MSM as biased and unreliable in its political reporting.
It’s like the teapartiers. Reliable polls show that getting the votes of people who view the teapartiers favorably is essential to winning swing districts — yet libs still attack them viciously. It’s insane.
ACORN in MD has lots of problems, including accusations (in the press) of racketeering. Some of ACORN’s Baltimore officers apparently bought houses, rented them out, took out every home equity loan they could get on the houses, fell into arears in the housing bust, and then threatened to sic ACORN on them with complaints of ‘predatory lending’ if they foreclosed.
The Maryland AG is a Democrat and a huge Obama supporter. Politically there is no way she can put the O’Keefe/Giles case in front of grand jury without putting ACORN there as well.
Keep defending ACORN until the bitter end, eh Dog. Still hoping to impeach Boooosh? How about that national guard memo that Dan Rather got the scoop on!!! Wasn’t that the career move!!!
And the real kicker, yep, it was Linda Tripp’s fault that Clinton christened the Oral Office.
“Unless you can show that the ACORN workers advice was “FAKED”, really, you haven’t a leg to stand on.”
But Mitch, Linda Tripp committed a possible felony!
Sure Terry. How many MSM stories have you read about the indicted Democrat (tic tic tic) mayor of Baltimore? The only reason Blago in Illinois gets press is because he was trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat.
There’s a reason liberal idiots call Fox “Faux News”. A) they have precious little imagination, and B) Fox isn’t reporting what they want to hear. Same deal with O’Keefe and Giles. They dared to expose a liberal corrupt organization, so they must be destroyed. God help us survive this stupidity.
Alas, Tic’s stupidity knows no bounds as we are constantly reminded by likes of Wet Dog, RatioRinkyDink, AC, etc…
Oh, and that definitive paragon of settled science – An Inconvinient Truth – was 100% true and correct. No premeditated attempts to deceive there, no way!
Don’t forget the hockey stick graph!!!