Or Barack Nixon?
Here is a link that might be useful: Those who don't learn from history...
Wow, that's just creepy.
I had already read it Bill.
This is who he is and has always been.
His concern has never been for the people.
It is all about his "vision". It is all about him.
I'm not sure his mess will be able to be cleaned up.
I'd put Ted Nugent at the top of the list.
Hold the tar and feathers until you read the list.
Here is a link that might be useful: the list
go to opensecrets.org and you can read donations to all candidates, not the SuperPacs...just the candidates.
Is your name on there somewhere?
Yup, real creepy isn't it? Real creepy to see who the big donors are to Romney and of course it makes it "plain as the nose on your face" that it is big business and the not so nice side of big business and the low life homophobes that are donating the huge sums.
No surprise there.
What is creepy? what is the outrage? Oh I know, it's making sure that the public know what kind of person, what kind of people support the newest presumed GOP candidate for president and showing the public, the electorate that Romney is far from what he claims he is.
Oops real problem, real creepy, and it's all public knowledge to boot.
They are making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's "naughty and nice" ..
"It was enormous, it should have been illegal, and it was said to be backed up by illegal wiretaps made possible by the Patriot Act.
Bush's list contains the names and incriminating details on more than 10,000 subjects deemed hostile to the administration, and even those believed critical of Bush during his tenure as governor of Texas. More worrisome than the existence of such a list is the misuse by Bush insiders of the so-called "Patriot Act" to investigate those disagreeing with administration policies"
....just a little googling on a dreary and rainy Saturday.
BUT Ohiomom, Bush did that, didn't you know that's OK, The GOP "top dog" did that, it's OK.
It's not OK for Obama to do that, just ask Mitch about that one. His one purpose, his one goal in life was/is to make Obama a 1 term president. Started working on that goal the night Obama one the election.
That's what's been going on the past 3 years. So much for the GOP to be proud of.
Didn't the GOP stand for the "grand ole party". What the heck does it stand for now?
Doesn't bother me. Transparency, right?
Deflection---again. That's okay. Means we've got that "level playing field", right? ;-)
I don't see anything wrong with seeking to have those who contribute to political attack ads identified, especially big oil interests, Wall Street and the wealthy. When they are discovered, he11 yes, shine a light on them.
President Obama was absolutely right and indeed courageous to warn about the pitfalls of the Citizens United case.
That is nothing like the political enemies list that Nixon made or the burglary of the Watergate hotel by his minions.
Nixon was steeped in paranoia and antisemitism. Listen to some of the Nixon tapes like those with Billy Graham.
Obama promised to end the Iraq war and he did., on schedule. Nixon won in 1968 by promising to end the Vietnam War which he failed to do until he was forced to take 'peace with honor"
under increasing political pressure in Washington, on college campuses, and out in the streets.
And lastly, never forget, Nixon was impeached, doled out of office for a crime that he likely had a leading role in planning.
Here is a link that might be useful: Nixon ? You gotta be kiddin' Bill
Careful how much you bash Nixon.
After all, he DID found the EPA!
Ok... so that was the written opinion of someone, as it was the "opinions page" of that publication... where's the facts page?
It's just politics as usual. Why the "outrage".
Last week we heard testimony in England from Murdoch if you didn't follow too bad look it all up it's interesting.
Last year Bancroft Family members claimed they regretted selling Murdoch the Wall Street Journal.
Less business coverage & analysis more politics & opinion ah well & drink from the well whose water tastes sweeter to you!
The last lines of the New Yorker article on the hearings was also interesting and probably true.
The Murdochs’ willingness to treat their friends brutally isn’t an effective part of an attempt to persuade the public, and the law, that they were’t brutal to their enemies, or to people they’d never met.
"It's just politics as usual. Why the "outrage"."
Because Americans don't like it when their president misuses his power and the government resources they pay for to maintain a personal "enemies" list. A president is elected to serve the people's interests. When he's caught attempting to intimidate the "opposition," whether it's the SCOTUS or his opponent's big political contributors, that kind of "business as usual" still gets the electorate's attention.
People get put on a president's "enemies" list for one reason. They pose a threat to that president's POLITICAL power.
But being a threat to an incumbent president's hold on the oval office is not a crime. It's a right, built into our political system in order to keep our elected leaders accountable to us.
Romney and his supporters are not "enemies" of the president. They are simply the OPPOSITION. They are exercising their rights, as they are entitled to do.
We entrust presidents with power for a limited term. Presidents do not "own" the office. To serve is a privilege and a gift from the American people.
We give a president four years to make his best case for re election. The American people weigh in with their own "performance review" on election day. And that's how it works here.
If the president and his party have performed as well as supporters tell us they have, Democrat incumbents, including President Obama, can expect excellent "performance reviews" in November.
Nik it was Nixon that had a "personal "enemies" list" not Obama. Obama's list is a list of Romney sponsors he believes have a hidden agenda who may indeed be the enemies of a fair government.
I like the way Nik put it. I'm sure it's idealistic, but we need that idealism; we have the cynicism down.
Newsman Daniel Schorr regarded being on Nixon's "enemies list" as one of his greatest accomplishments.
Chuck Coulson compiled a daily changing master list. I personally would have considered it an honor... a tax audit or two would have been laughable if not downright pathetic.
"Nik it was Nixon that had a "personal "enemies" list" not Obama."
Nixon had his list. We didn't like it. Now we have learned Obama has his own list. People don't like it when the White House starts keeping a list of "enemies." Americans know the only reason for the list is that those individuals on the list are a threat to POLITICAL power. As I said, an enemies list gets the public's attention.
The executive branch is not tasked with "investigating" nor publicly "identifying" political opposition. If they "believe" there is a "hidden agenda" that might interfere with "fair elections," that is a criminal matter. The American people don't want criminal investigations of private citizens run out of the White House. As Romney says, we're not stupid.
Kills me your outraged over this but not peep out of you on the quislings get together to plan obstruction the night of the inauguration to hold up the nations business. You got some interesting values & they are rarely independent.
The use of the word 'enemies' is really inapplicable and provocative. The word was used to describe Nixon's political opponents because that is how many thought he viewed them, and as it turned out, the Nixon tapes largely bear that out.
The American people don't want criminal investigations of private citizens run out of the White House.
Are you referring to the United States Department of Justice?
What criminal investigation do you think is being run out of the White House...or are you just spinning that as well?
I don't give a frig WHO does it! It's NOT okay. But for the record, Bush didn't publish his list either, trying to discourage any others from contributing to his rival, either.
I don't see anything wrong with seeking to have those who contribute to political attack ads identified
From EITHER side Heri?
Will be easy enough for Romney to "publish" the list of donors to Obama ... I mean they are already "listed" online, just a few clicks of Auntie will give you their names.
Brush only those who dissent will be droned, those who join the borg will be safe.
All we are saying ...
"What criminal investigation do you think is being run out of the White House...or are you just spinning that as well?"
It's all so murky! Labrea says "Obama's list is a list of Romney sponsors he believes have a hidden agenda who may indeed be the enemies of a fair government."
Running against an incumbent president isn't a crime, so I have no idea why Romney supporters are on the president's "enemies" list.
Far from being "enemies" of a "fair government" the nominee who challenges an incumbent, and those who support the nominee promote fair government by keeping electeds accountable to the people. Nobody owns the presidency. That's part of what makes our system work. Appropriating the peoples resources in an effort to intimidate challengers is a perversion of our system, and that this is happening is good information for the electorate to have.
I'm sure that "enemies" is the wrong word to use here and I don't know who started using it.
Donor information should be available and revealing some of the high contributors to let people know who is supporting who is fair game.
On both sides, Bill.
go to opensecrets.org and you can read donations to all candidates, not the SuperPacs...just the candidates. (jmc)
.....maybe this is where Obama's people got the "list"?
There is nothing secretive about it and/or nefarious .. hell it is an "OPEN SECRET".
Will be easy enough for Romney to "publish" the list of donors to Obama ... I mean they are already "listed" online
And then all Romney needs to do is spend taxpayer dollars to investigate each one and post the results, and then I have no problem, because we're then back on an even playing field.
And then you see the Dept of Justice go after the funny-smelling campaign contributions. Like the current John Edwards trial, or who was that Asian guy who bundled all kinds of money for Democrats?
The radio this morning was talking about how the Romney campaign isn't giving the names of their contribution "bundlers" - which has been common practice for the last several elections. No legal reason to do so, to be sure.
To some extent, this is kind of a red herring. The big money now is in the Super Packs and the unlimited corporate contributions. As I live in one of those 'battle ground' states, we're in for months and months of constant TV attack ads. I'd like to know who to blame.
Can't wait till Romney is president and all is "right" in the world again.
"Donor information should be available and revealing some of the high contributors to let people know who is supporting who is fair game."
Naming contributors is the law, and fair game. SHAMING contributors is not. That's not the way the Americans I know want their government treating private citizens. As a conservative, I object to how the White House is conducting itself. I think it's scary. Not a bit of alarm from the lib side, though.
FTA: "This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans.""
FTA: "The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents."
Here is a link that might be useful: Big Brother is Shaming You
Hey, look, here's part of 'the list'....
Donors who benefit from betting against America
Paul "Chip" Schorr: Paul Schorr has given $112,500 to Romney's presidential ambitions through Super PAC and direct campaign donations. As a partner at Blackstone, Schorr closed a deal in 2007 to outsource the services of seven U.S. companies to a firm in India, boosting that firm's profits by $220 million and making millionaires of the Indian management team. In 2006, he arranged a buyout of a Colorado travel reservations company that led to 841 layoffs while Blackstone and its partners recouped the billions of dollars they invested in less than a year.
Sam and Jeffrey Fox: Sam and Jeffrey Fox serve as co-chairman of Romney's finance operation in Missouri and, together, have donated $220,000 to Romney's presidential ambitions. They also control the Harbour Group investment firm which bragged about buying an automotive accessories manufacturing company in Kansas in 1997 and moving production to Mexico. In 2002, the Harbour group's Mexico operation decided to outsource to China because China was "offering incentives and making it easy to open operations there." The Chinese government awarded Sam Fox the Marco Polo Award for "his company's role in China's economic development and his humanitarian contributions to that country."
T. Martin Fiorentino: T. Martin Fiorentino is on Romney's Florida finance team and has bundled over $140,000 for the Romney campaign. He also lobbied on behalf of Lender Processing Services, a "foreclosure mill" that paid him to lobby on legislation aimed at preventing lenders from "making loans that borrowers would have difficulty repaying." The government has reprimanded Lender Processing Services "for unsound practices related to residential mortgage loan serving and foreclosure processing."
Romney's stances on social and economic issues, like his long-standing alliance with Big Oil, attracts the contributions of high-dollar donors who are interested in pursuing a specific agenda. Here are just a few of special-interest donors that Romney is taking money from:
Louis Moore Bacon: An early mega-donor for Romney, Louis Moore Bacon donated $500,000 to the Restore Our Future Super PAC. Bacon makes his profit off of oil, first making a huge profit from successfully betting that gas prices would rise before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1989. Bacon's firm, Moore Capital, was fined $25 million for attempting to manipulate certain commodity futures markets.
Thomas O'Malley: Thomas O'Malley is the CEO of PBF Energy, America's fourth largest petroleum refining company, and gave $100,000 to Restore Our Future. Not only did PBF energy help drive gas prices up this year by curtailing gas production, but it spilled 6.6 million gallons of oil at a refinery in New Jersey. The release of toxic gas and eventual explosion at another of its refineries in Delaware also directly contributed to a spike in gas prices.
Kent Burton: Kent Burton is one of Romney's new bundlers who raised more than $25,000 in one month for Romney's campaign. He is also a registered lobbyist for a wide array of energy clients, including Marathon Oil and Shell Oil.
Frank Vandersloot: Frank Vandersloot is the national finance co-chairman of the Romney campaign and, through his company Melaleuca, has donated $1 million to Restore Our Future. He is also a "litigious, combative, and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement" who "spent big" on ads in an "ultimately unsuccessful effort to force Idaho Public Television to cancel a program that showed gays and lesbians in a favorable light to school children."
Over the top? Equivalent of Nixon's 'Enemies List' or the counterpoint to all adverse publicity that big Obama donors get?
Back to you in the studio, Walter.
Here is a link that might be useful: link
I'm at a loss where did I write this?
"t's all so murky! Labrea says "Obama's list is a list of Romney sponsors he believes have a hidden agenda who may indeed be the enemies of a fair government.""
"I'm at a loss where did I write this?"
So sorry, Labrea! You wrote no such thing, and I apologize.
I should have credited Inkognito. My apologies to you as well, Inky.