Reply
Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:16 pm
Quote:Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: August 7, 2008
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding "warning" letter in the mail next week.
The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.
Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.
source
This pretty much shows the willingness of the extreme left to do anything, even commit blackmail, in order to advance Obama. Would hope that more reasonable libs denounce this tactic loudly...but I won't hold my breath.
Re: Liberals plan to blackmail GOP donors
slkshock7 wrote:Quote:Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: August 7, 2008
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding "warning" letter in the mail next week.
The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.
Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.
source
This pretty much shows the willingness of the extreme left to do anything, even commit blackmail, in order to advance Obama. Would hope that more reasonable libs denounce this tactic loudly...but I won't hold my breath.
If these donors have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind the attention. Right?
The Dems aren't going to sit back and let the rich as$holes who fund the hit-jobs for the Republicans do it in the dark any longer...
Cycloptichorn
Re: Liberals plan to blackmail GOP donors
Cycloptichorn wrote: slkshock7 wrote:Quote:Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: August 7, 2008
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding "warning" letter in the mail next week.
The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.
Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.
source
This pretty much shows the willingness of the extreme left to do anything, even commit blackmail, in order to advance Obama. Would hope that more reasonable libs denounce this tactic loudly...but I won't hold my breath.
If these donors have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind the attention. Right?
The Dems aren't going to sit back and let the rich as$holes who fund the hit-jobs for the Republicans do it in the dark any longer...
Cycloptichorn
Any "hit-jobs" from Republicans have been typically against the candidate, not the donors simply wanting to help realize their vision of America. How far would you condone attacking donors? Perhaps you'll approve starting at the biggest donors and working your way down? How about targeting small donors like you and I and "outing" us for those things we'd rather not have public? What about targeting the rank and file of the DNC, the ACLU or Planned Parenthood? Sure would be a good way of reducing membership in those organizations.
Re: Liberals plan to blackmail GOP donors
slkshock7 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote: slkshock7 wrote:Quote:Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: August 7, 2008
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding "warning" letter in the mail next week.
The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.
Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.
source
This pretty much shows the willingness of the extreme left to do anything, even commit blackmail, in order to advance Obama. Would hope that more reasonable libs denounce this tactic loudly...but I won't hold my breath.
If these donors have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind the attention. Right?
The Dems aren't going to sit back and let the rich as$holes who fund the hit-jobs for the Republicans do it in the dark any longer...
Cycloptichorn
Any "hit-jobs" from Republicans have been typically against the candidate, not the donors simply wanting to help realize their vision of America. How far would you condone attacking donors? Perhaps you'll approve starting at the biggest donors and working your way down? How about targeting small donors like you and I and "outing" us for those things we'd rather not have public? What about targeting the rank and file of the DNC, the ACLU or Planned Parenthood? Sure would be a good way of reducing membership in those organizations.
I think they are focused more on exposing the super-rich Republican donors who fund outside groups such as the inappropriately named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If people knew what kind of jerks it was funding these things, the message becomes much less compelling.
I think it'll be fun, to see who is really ponying up the money to attack Obama. Don't you?
Cycloptichorn
Nice sentiment but not true...this might be warranted if it were an action taken after a "swiftboat" attack but it's clearly a pre-emptive strike. They're planning to broadly threaten all well-heeled Republican donors "who might be considering giving"....
Same article wrote:The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.
The group is also hoping to be able to respond if an outside conservative group broadcasts a television advertisement attacking Senator Barack Obama, or another Democratic candidate, by running commercials exposing the donors behind the advertisements.
So did Boone Pickens ever pay off on the $1 million bet he obviously lost about the Swifties?
It's interesting how Pickens has decided to not give money to groups like that this election cycle.
I'm all for both sides doing this. If an outside group runs ads then the public should know who it is that sponsored those ads. Individuals should be made accountable.
parados wrote:I'm all for both sides doing this. If an outside group runs ads then the public should know who it is that sponsored those ads. Individuals should be made accountable.
How about if you were the target though? I've given money to conservative groups before but I'm far from rich. Nevertheless, if God blessed me to be rich, I would like to think I'd still be able to give to the organization of my choice without fear of "a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through" my life.
I guess you're of the opinion that such freedoms should only be enjoyed by those earning less than $200K per year?
Re: Liberals plan to blackmail GOP donors
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If these donors have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind the attention. Right?
The Dems aren't going to sit back and let the rich as$holes who fund the hit-jobs for the Republicans do it in the dark any longer...
Cycloptichorn
I think they are focused more on exposing the super-rich Republican donors who fund outside groups such as the inappropriately named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If people knew what kind of jerks it was funding these things, the message becomes much less compelling.
I think it'll be fun, to see who is really ponying up the money to attack Obama. Don't you?
Cycloptichorn
In the first place I'm not inclined to blame "all leftists or Obama supporters or Democrats" for this kind of behavior. The fault belongs only to those who do it -- i.e. attempt to intimidate others into silence or otherwise limit their right to free speech and support of candidates & positions they choose.
However it sometimes does seem to be more widespread than I thought. Odd isn't it to see how close some who flap their gums incessantly about what they style as "progressive" issues come to the kind of authoritarian thuggery we associate with Fascists. Like their forebearers, they defend their actions with the false claim that they are only retaliating in kind. Sad to see.
nothing in here about blackmail--these lefties aren't asking for anything in return for their silence, are they? intimidation's more like it, if anything, but doubt they have resources to have much impact.
Re: Liberals plan to blackmail GOP donors
georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
If these donors have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind the attention. Right?
The Dems aren't going to sit back and let the rich as$holes who fund the hit-jobs for the Republicans do it in the dark any longer...
Cycloptichorn
I think they are focused more on exposing the super-rich Republican donors who fund outside groups such as the inappropriately named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If people knew what kind of jerks it was funding these things, the message becomes much less compelling.
I think it'll be fun, to see who is really ponying up the money to attack Obama. Don't you?
Cycloptichorn
In the first place I'm not inclined to blame "all leftists or Obama supporters or Democrats" for this kind of behavior. The fault belongs only to those who do it -- i.e. attempt to intimidate others into silence or otherwise limit their right to free speech and support of candidates & positions they choose.
However it sometimes does seem to be more widespread than I thought. Odd isn't it to see how close some who flap their gums incessantly about what they style as "progressive" issues come to the kind of authoritarian thuggery we associate with Fascists. Like their forebearers, they defend their actions with the false claim that they are only retaliating in kind. Sad to see.
Why don't you do me a favor, and point out which aspect of their plan is 'thuggery?'
Thugs are generally people who hurt others for money. I think you are, what's the phrase? Oh yes - Exaggerating for effect.
Cycloptichorn
Thuggery might not be the right word....they're attempting something more akin to the Spanish Inquisition. They're objective is that everyone believe what they believe or face the consequences....
"A letter from your friends at (your bank):
Like all Americans, we're very interested in the upcoming election. We here at (your bank) are of the firm belief that the election of (Republican candidate) is important, and that his(her) administration would be good for the country.
We've noticed that you've recently donated money to (Democratic candidate). At this time, we'd like to remind you that our institution prefers not to do business with people it has determined to be of low moral character, as expressed by voluntary financial support of (Democratic candidate). Thus, we will be declining to issue you new loans or credit in any capacity. Your credit card has been invalidated for future purchases as well. Finally, if you encounter financial hardship, we'd like to inform you that our corporation will insist on timely repayment of every cent owed to us, to the fullest extent of the law, and that we are prepared to seize your assets if necessary.
On that topic, it is also our policy that companies in whom our mutual funds invest are not allowed to employ individuals who are of low moral character, as evinced by financial support of (Democratic candidate). A similar policy is in place at each of our competitors. To date, this network corresponds to 87.3% of all employment in the country, including 100.0% of the employment in your current industry. Your employer should be contacting you shortly to arrange for your termination. We sincerely hope that you will enjoy your future career as an itinerant farm laborer or landscaping specialist.
We have also alerted your neighborhood association as to your low moral fiber, as evinced by your financial support of (Democratic candidate). An officious busybody will be coming to your house shortly, doubtless finding dozens of potential violations of your deed restrictions that will cost you thousands of dollars to defend in court.
Of course, we here at (your bank here) are aware that you may not actually be of low moral character, and that you merely have a spirited support for the hallowed traditions of American democracy. You may demonstrate this spirit by making a matching contribution to (Republican candidate); we have helpfully provided a telephone number. Of course, should you make this voluntary donation, we would be happy to continue doing business with you, extending employment to you and your family, and allowing you to live in your house."
Keep in mind, folks, that some tactics aren't cool, no matter who uses them. And if your allies use those tactics, you cannot complain much when they're used against you...
slkshock7 wrote:parados wrote:I'm all for both sides doing this. If an outside group runs ads then the public should know who it is that sponsored those ads. Individuals should be made accountable.
How about if you were the target though? I've given money to conservative groups before but I'm far from rich. Nevertheless, if God blessed me to be rich, I would like to think I'd still be able to give to the organization of my choice without fear of "a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through" my life.
I guess you're of the opinion that such freedoms should only be enjoyed by those earning less than $200K per year?
.
There are not legal troubles unless you gave money to an organization knowing they would use it illegally.
Public exposure? Freedom of speech is not freedom to be anonymous. If you don't want people to know you support a position then don't give money.
Watch dog groups digging through your life? Oh please. They can't say anything against you that isn't true without violating slander and libel laws. If you are that rich then people are already digging through your life.
The only argument you are making is that rich people should be free to spend money anonymously and tell lies without being held accountable. It is bull ****. No matter which side does it, they should not be able to do it secretly. The ballot is secret. Speech is not.
Avator,
If my bank sent such a letter to me I would forward it to my state attorney general, all news medai and then file a law suit. The letter violates several laws.
I would also be transferring all my money to a new bank as would anyone that received that letter. Nothing like a run on a bank to make federal regulators take notice of its assets and practices.
Wow......progressive indeed.
I am amazed at these new kind of politics.
I also find it funny that this group doesn't disclose it's donors.
parados wrote: There are not legal troubles unless you gave money to an organization knowing they would use it illegally.
Public exposure? Freedom of speech is not freedom to be anonymous. If you don't want people to know you support a position then don't give money.
Watch dog groups digging through your life? Oh please. They can't say anything against you that isn't true without violating slander and libel laws. If you are that rich then people are already digging through your life.
The only argument you are making is that rich people should be free to spend money anonymously and tell lies without being held accountable. It is bull ****. No matter which side does it, they should not be able to do it secretly. The ballot is secret. Speech is not.
Do you oppose privacy rights? Is is OK for cops to search your home or vehicle without cause? After all, in each of these cases, as long as you haven't done anything illegal, you shouldn't have a problem, right? I guess you believe there is no such thing as a right to privacy, eh?
slkshock7 wrote:parados wrote: There are not legal troubles unless you gave money to an organization knowing they would use it illegally.
Public exposure? Freedom of speech is not freedom to be anonymous. If you don't want people to know you support a position then don't give money.
Watch dog groups digging through your life? Oh please. They can't say anything against you that isn't true without violating slander and libel laws. If you are that rich then people are already digging through your life.
The only argument you are making is that rich people should be free to spend money anonymously and tell lies without being held accountable. It is bull ****. No matter which side does it, they should not be able to do it secretly. The ballot is secret. Speech is not.
Do you oppose privacy rights? Is is OK for cops to search your home or vehicle without cause? After all, in each of these cases, as long as you haven't done anything illegal, you shouldn't have a problem, right? I guess you believe there is no such thing as a right to privacy, eh?
You can't expect privacy when it comes to information in the public domain. If they are breaking into your house or digging through your garbage then you can claim invasion of privacy. If they send the police to search you without a warrant then you can claim a violation of your rights. Simply because they print things about you that are already in the public domain is NOT an invasion of privacy. If you check the names of those they already list as being watched on their website, they print nothing that can't be found with a simple google search.
Your argument is beyond silly at this point.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace