Tea Party donor hypocrisy, Gubernatorial donor overreach

A couple of interesting political stories today. The Nevada senate race reveals just how hypocritical a Tea Party candidate can be, and Utah’s Gubernatorial race is getting a bit strange.

In Utah, we see Gov. Herbert defending himself against charges by Peter Corroon of cozying up to contractors who donated to his campaign. He even said Herbert is almost as corrupt as Gov. Blagojevich in Illinois, which I have to think is a bit of a stretch. Blago sets some pretty high standards.

On the other hand, Herbert is stretching things to expect us to believe he’s not influenced by all the money donated to him. All those contractors like him because, as a former real estate person, Herbert is hard-wired to love everything about development, and the state’s development industries want to make darn sure he stays in office.

Not that Corroon would necessarily be against development, but he’s a democrat and might not be into all the little nuances of ensuring growth over all else. He’s not a member of the club and might start going all environmental on them. That makes him dangerous.

Meanwhile, in Nevada,I thought Harry Reid missed a golden chance to whap Sharron Angle upside the head with the major hypocritical gaffe she committed in their debate last night.

Angle went after Reid for having a lot of money even though he came from poor roots. She implied that a rich senator must be up to something, a carefully crafted attack that I’m sure will be in her campaign ads today. She demanded to know where he got his money, the implication being, of course, that he’s been bought off.

Obviously, she hasn’t been talking to Herbert who could assure her that campaign donations never, ever, affect a politicians judgement.

Reid got huffy and insisted he was a successful lawyer. What a wimp.

What he should have done was point out that (a) a heck of a lot of GOP senators are richer than he is. The Senate is a millionaires club.

And (b) he should have told Angle that if she’s so interested in revealing where money comes from he’ll throw his finances wide open if she’ll release a list of everyone spending money on the very expensive TV ads that are running for her in Nevada. That includes the ads funded by so-called “non-partisan” groups that refuse to say who gives them money because the Supreme Court now allows unlimited corporate donations in complete secrecy.

“Tell who provides money to those groups,” he should have demanded, “and don’t go hiding behind the Supreme Court’s skirts.”

Wow, there’s a line that could have won him the election.

This is one of the biggest problems Democrats seem to have. They’re not sharp enough for the kill stroke. Tea Party folk love that sort of thing, even if it is totally hypocritical and makes no sense. “Death Panels” was only the tip of the iceberg.

Share
This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Tea Party donor hypocrisy, Gubernatorial donor overreach

  1. Kris Baker says:

    Democrats are smart enough, but stupidly believe that the electorate is informed.

    Meanwhile, there’s a crowd out there whose deep political beliefs would fit onto bumper stickers.

    Lower my taxes!
    Don’t cut my Social Security!
    Obama’s a socialist!
    Lower taxes for the rich!
    Don’t take away my Medicare!
    Lower the deficit!
    Create jobs!
    Peace? You’re soft on terror!

    Who can provide a counter-argument to the short-attention span folks, in the space of a bumper sticker?

    My husband had a good opportunity at work yesterday.

    Over a partition, he heard some men grumbling about Obama and taxes. Hubby poked his head over the cubicle, and told them he was jealous because they made $250,000 and he didn’t.

    “We don’t make $250,000!”

    “Then Obama doesn’t want to raise your taxes!?

    “REEEEEEEEEEEELY?”

    “Yes.”

    The $100 million investment in the Tea Party by the Koch Brothers has been money well spent.
    But the righties don’t know about it; they’re still complaining about Soros spending 1/5 that.

    Apparently, it’s only OK for wealthy Republicans to spend their money as they wish.

  2. Dovie says:

    Maybe there is a reason Reid doesn’t want to “throw his finances wide open”. I sincerely doubt there is any politician, Repub or Dem, who wants to go there.

  3. Efialtis says:

    This Blog entry makes a couple very good arguments, with support from Dovie on this…
    1) This is the very argument FOR the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
    Take money out of the equation. Go back to letting the States APPOINT their senators. Hold the senators accountable to the States, not their largest donors.
    2) The electorate is becoming educated. This is why more and more people are speaking up and being heard, and why the TEA Party is gaining in popularity — among Democrats. 1 in 4 democrats now support the efforts of the TEA Party.
    The more people learn about how we are being lied to and manipulated, and how we are losing the basic foundations of a Free Society, the further away they are pulling form the majority of politicians in Congress (and in the White House)…

  4. Kris Baker says:

    Dovie, I’d think Reid would be happy to throw his finances wide open, since he was an attorney (ie, a businessman) before he went to the Senate.
    Shouldn’t that make him more appealing to all sides (especially the Republicans, who honor businessmen-attorneys such as Mike BareLEE of Utah)?

    Efialtis:
    Your wish for appointed senators is obvious: less interference from the half of Utah that isn’t tied to the (R)ote vote.
    We all know who’d be the pulling the strings for the appointed Senators: the LDS church.

    Meh.

  5. Efialtis says:

    @ Kris,
    Don’t pretend to know what I want, you will be disappointed because you are obviously prejudiced.
    Beyond that, the Senate is more than the 2 people from Utah.

    So, if you can see beyond your bias, can you think of any “negatives” to appointing, instead of electing, our senators?

  6. ken thomson says:

    Another bumper sticker could be: I’m still drinking the Kool Aid.

    Just for simplicity sake Cigarette tax $.62 per pack increase.

    If you choose not to buy health insurance $462.00 for one person and $990.00 for two in the same family.

    The health care bill is loaded with new tax.

    And lets not forget he wants Cap and Tax passed. Check that one out.

    So keep drinking the Kool Aid.

  7. ken thomson says:

    It is my understanding that Dinghy Harry was a city atttorney in Henderson NV. before he got into politics. Hardly the poster boy for the Chamber of Commerce or the The Bar Association. Harry has always fed at some government trough.

  8. Michael Johnson says:

    Americans are becoming more educated? That’s a notion that contradicts facts. As a friend pointed out the obvious: that about 50% of Americans have an below average IQ. Seeing people dressed acting without decorum, civility or manners doesn’t impress me.

    When asked what has been taken away, these people react with silence and mindless staring. You never hear polysyllabic language from these people, many who bought those vocabulary tapes Limbaugh once sold. The though of turning off talk radio and reading was an solution so obvious, its escaped these conservatives.

    Look at their math skills, if their language skills weren’t bad enough. We have people Fox News and talk radio have convinced that borrowing 2.3 trillion dollar so wealthy trust babies won’t be taxed on their income: parental welfare.

    We have middle class workers who on the average have lost $2000 a year in income calling government help for our nation’s unemployed a redistribution of wealth. These folk can’t use the Internet well enough to learn the largest transfer of wealth was from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.

    I feel your pain. My income as always be taxed higher so it could be redistributed to people claiming child credits and dependent deductions. I pay to educate kids that aren’t mine. It’s bad enough government has forced me to carry these parental parasite. Aren’t “parasite” what you call you who get the government to pay for their choices?

    We have our piggish rich who love to talk about sacrificing for our nation when someone else has a kid killed in war. They darn sure won’t sacrifice a dime when our nation is in an war for economic recovery.

  9. ctrentelman says:

    i am absolutely amazed that the tea party types want to go back to appointed senators — are they not aware that one of the reasons we got away from that was the immense graft that was involved? The Party Machine shenanigans? The out and out bribery that occured?

    It was the exact opposite of everything the tea party claims to stand for.

    If someone can show that reid got his money improperly, now is a good time to do so. However, be sure and show where the money supporting Angle is also coming from, just to prove that you’re being even handed in all this.

  10. Kris Baker says:

    Efialtis: having appointed Senators is basically what we already have in Utah.
    In the last Republican convention, the fringe elements of Wimmer et al who’ve taken over the party, managed to nominate A LAWYER (of all things).

    That LAWYER is now ahead of a BUSINESSMAN. Isn’t it funny how the supposedly pro-business, anti-lawyer Utahns will throw their beliefs to the wind as long as the nominee is an LDS with an (R) behind his name?

    Efialtis stoops to an ad hominem attack, when he calls me “prejudiced”. I’m prejudiced because my beliefs don’t agree with his? REALLY?

    Perhaps, Efialtis, you can call one of our Founding Fathers “prejudiced”, also?

    “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.

    They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

    I knew that age well. It was very much like the present, but without the experience of the present. Let us not weakly believe that one
    generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own afairs. The dead have no rights.j”

    Thomas Jefferson, 1816

    ———

    I firmly believe that our Founding Fathers would hang their heads in shame, if they saw what was happening to the United States — due to people who want to take their country back to 1787 when the Constitution was “pure”..

    Remember, Tea Party, the Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.

    Take our country BACK?

    You’ll lose your right to bear a musket in the militia, if you have your own way.
    But maybe I can hold some Tea Baggers as slaves?

  11. efialtis says:

    @Kris:
    “having appointed Senators is basically what we already have in Utah.”
    There is a difference between what you think (as quoted) and reality…
    Some would say that you suffer from delusions…
    The fact is, we elect our Senators, and they don’t feel the need to represent us for the same reason that $13 million was paid out in Utah to “cover up” a bad deal on Road Construction.
    They aren’t held to Utah and their Constituents, they are held to those who bring in the big donations.
    If you want that kind of thing to stop, you have to change the system… or do you believe that we can correct the problem by doing the same thing over and over again?

    “In the last Republican convention, the fringe elements of Wimmer et al who’ve taken over the party, managed to nominate A LAWYER (of all things).”
    Oh, the horror…
    Clinton was a Lawyer, and he didn’t do too bad a job, now did he?
    (The hypocrisy is thick with this one)

    “Isn’t it funny how the supposedly pro-business, anti-lawyer Utahns will throw their beliefs to the wind as long as the nominee is an LDS with an (R) behind his name?”
    Gee, it just goes to show that you have no comprehension about what is going on in Utah politics. The TEA Party isn’t about D or R, it is about VALUES, HONOR, INTEGRITY…

    “Efialtis stoops to an ad hominem attack, when he calls me “prejudiced”. I’m prejudiced because my beliefs don’t agree with his? REALLY?”
    LOL! Not ad hominem because it is true. You even show, yourself, the level of your bias in this posting as well as others. You obviously “drink the cool-aid” of the left, as you spout the rhetoric, misinformation, and deceptions that come from deep left field.

    Perhaps, Efialtis, you can call one of our Founding Fathers “prejudiced”, also?

    “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.
    They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.
    I knew that age well. It was very much like the present, but without the experience of the present. Let us not weakly believe that one
    generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own afairs. The dead have no rights.j”
    Thomas Jefferson, 1816

    I love that quote. And it goes to show just how little you know about politics and what is happening in our country.
    NO ONE has ever said we need to NEVER change or alter the Constitution. It has a process to be amended. Fine. Then we should use that process… instead, we let the Government do what it wants at everyone’s expense.
    Read the news. 60% of the people (or more) want healthcare repealed, 1 in 4 democrats are now supporting TEA Party candidates, Democrats are abandoning Obama… why? Well, I will leave you to figure that out.
    The point is, our Government is following it’s own desires and not the desires of the People. Our Government has stolen authority and power it was not meant to have. Unless you can point me to the clause in the Constitution that allows Government control of private business? Or the clause that allows National Healthcare under penalty of Jail or Fines?

    Wake Up!

    “I firmly believe that our Founding Fathers would hang their heads in shame, if they saw what was happening to the United States”
    I agree, but not for the same reasons, obviously…

    “due to people who want to take their country back to 1787 when the Constitution was “pure”..”
    More rhetoric, and you bought the whole package. SAD.

    “Remember, Tea Party, the Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.”
    Irrelevant. Unless you have bought into the Left’s propaganda?

    “Take our country BACK?”
    Yes. It is a Government OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE… not the special interest groups that run Congress or the power hungry “lifetime” congressmen in office…

    “You’ll lose your right to bear a musket in the militia, if you have your own way.”
    Only if you have fallen for the lies and disinformation of the Left… as you obviously have. No ad hominem there, just pure simple fact.

    “But maybe I can hold some Tea Baggers as slaves?”
    Only if you hold people’s Civil rights in as much Contempt as the Left does…
    Raising taxes, killing jobs and the economy…
    Now you can argue these points as well, but I have already won the argument… (i.e. Democrat Controlled Congress for 4 years now… oops… I just hate it when facts get in the way…)

  12. Kris Baker says:

    It’s much simpler than that, Efialtis:

    Appointing Utah Senators means that a vast number of Utahns will NEVER be represented. Not that we are now.

    Charlie’s right; history should not repeat itself.

  13. Dovie says:

    Lest anyone think that my comment was, in any way, a support for the Tea Party:

    I voted early and notice the Tea Party has gotten it’s way: half the Republicans are running unopposed. I’m pretty sure the founding fathers wanted (at least) to have two viable parties. I can’t see any bigger threat to our country than one-party appointments. My argument with the Tea Party is that they patently do not support the Constitution, separation of powers, or separation of church and state.

    It would be alot easier to appoint representatives in the Iraqi parliament, too. Why make such a fuss about free elections? The Tea Party will choose because they are right and righteous.

    The one power clearly given to the Feds is regulation of interstate and international commerce. The Tea Party wants commerce regulated by the state (or not at all) and they want the Feds to take over moral issues: stop CA from having gay marriage or legalizing marijuana. It’s bass-ackwards from what the founders set up.

    The other point of puzzlement to me is why anyone would think any of the Tea Party ideas are original or new. They have been done. They fail. They are too extreme. Like socialism on the left.

    “The Tea Party’s Wildest Dreams Come True – in Britain. The Result – Disaster.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-tea-partys-wildest-dr_b_770748.html

    Reid’s opponent may very well be worse than he is, but that is a stupid argument to make without proof. You will argue a moot point forever and it’s pointless.

    I think a good solution would be to have a law requiring open books for politicians and groups. (There is a nice letter in the Trib about where funding and organization came from for the “grassroots” Tea Party). Nobody has to unilaterally disarm and I think it would be quite revealing.

  14. Owain says:

    Dovie said, “My argument with the Tea Party is that they patently do not support the Constitution, separation of powers, or separation of church and state.”

    How so?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>