 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM "BB doesn't got out often and relies on right wing blogosphere folks (who get paid by corporate America to trash Obama and Dems) for almost all of his (facts)(?)... " No Bobert. You are incorrect in this, as well. But let me know if you need any computer parts or systems. I can meet you at Archie's- and you could get a few hours of music in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Genie Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:22 PM Sure, the independents and Tea Partiers want to get the money out of politics. Um hmm. Yeah. Sure. In Feingold's Loss, Independents Lose On Of Their Own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 06:10 PM Thank you, Genie... BB doesn't got out often and relies on right wing blogosphere folks (who get paid by corporate America to trash Obama and Dems) for almost all of his (facts)(?)... Of course these blogger will find anything anywhere that is anti-Obama just like the inflated and seriously wrong amounts that the president's upcoming trip to India, Indonesia, Japan will cost... Normal,,, these folks are so filled with hate they can no longer find any reason to even care about their own country... They pray for it to fail... That is the kind of hatred that we saw in the 30s in Germany... I mean, Hate of then highest Order Garbage in = garbage out... It's just too bad that bb and his buds cannot bring themselves to be Americans first and haters 2nd... That would be progress but it just ain't part of their collective DNA... But, of course, bb will retreat to his childish rebuttal that I said this about Bush or that... But in reality, I really didn't say much about the man until he started calling up his wars... And then I argued against his wars and didn't resort to the scum-level of attacking every time the man farted... I mean, I like bruce but he has some very serious hate issues... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Genie Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:33 PM BTW, one big difference between unions' and corporations' campaign contributions is that union members have a voice in deciding how the unions' money will be spent. They can block that $ being spent on campaigns they don't approve of, if they want to. Corporations are not democracies. The only shareholders who have much say about how the corporate $ is spent are the rich ones who own substantial portions of the company's stock. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Genie Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:27 PM Dick, yes, labor unions and liberal-leaning groups or people like George Soros (if he wanted to) can also buy campaign ads and radio stations. But the unions and anyone but the very rich can't compete with the deep pockets of multinational mega-corporations, and there are far more multi-millionaires and billionaires who want to promote and maintain plutocracy than there are who really have the interests of the common people at heart and who want to reduce the power of what FDR called the "economic royalists." We do need to get the $ out of politics. That's something Russ Feingold fought hard and long for, with some success. So the big-business interests targeted him and took him out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Genie Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:21 PM As Bobert says, we don't and can't really know how much has been spent on the anonymous-donor-sponsored "Independent" ads because the Republicans filibustered the bill that would have required disclosure of the sources. Also, some ads that are explicitly about ballot measures are probably not "counted" as ads for any candidate or party, but if they're ads against, say, gay marriage or legalization of marijuana or for publicly financed campaigns, etc., they're almost certainly backed by Republican supporters, and there's almost always a lot more spent on ads against land-use planning, environmental protection, abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, tax levies, etc., than on populist type measures. I'm glad you mentioned the 24-news-hour right-wing propaganda channel that calls itself Fox "News," Bobert. In addition, right-wing talk radio air time is more than 9:1 compared to progressive or liberal talk radio - plus, in most parts of the country you can't find any progressive or liberal talk radio at all. Even if that were due to listener preference -- which is absurd, since the conservatives/Republicans hardly ever outnumber the liberals/Democrats in voting by more than 7:3 and it's usually a lot closer to 50:50 than to aything much more lopsided, even in many so-called "red" states and regions -- it still means that it's very hard for anyone in most parts of the country to hear information and opinion presented by liberals or progressives. Between Fox News and talk radio, that's billions of $ being spent year round to disseminate Republican talking points and conservative-slanted "news" and opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:13 PM Bobert, "$30M in secret Chinese donations to the Repub Party is worrisome " It would be, if it were real- but those sources are less reliable than the ones YOU reject that show that Obama took foreign funds to win in 2008. I guess that was ok, since it was to buy the "right" person into office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 05:06 PM Grow up, bruce... $30M in secret Chinese donations to the Repub Party is worrisome and anything that you and yer rightie bloggers can find that Obama has done isn't even in the same league... No, not even in the same universe... I mean, that is a very childish argument and needs to be filed in the "bb River of shit"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:59 PM Bobert, There have been several reports of the Obama campaign not only soliciting money but receiving money from foreign countries. So?? I would want more than PARTISAN unbacked comments before I would declare something factual. So, if you have some support for your comment, feel free to post it. Otherwise, you get to be put into the "JtS River of Shit" catagory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:41 PM No, actually there have been several reports of the CoC not only soliciting money but receiving money from foreign countries, China being the largest donor... But, ya' see, China has it's own CoC which has direct ties to AmCoc... The amounts that I have hear on NPR and NBC have those foreign donations to AmCoC in the $30M range, almost all of which were spent on attack ads on Dems... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:36 PM Bruce, I am concerned about secret money. This whole thing is a red herring to me. Even so. I am not a citizen I am a green card holder and I am eligible to contribute directly to candidates, like any other legal resident. I pay US taxes I don't see a problem with that. By the way. That is not foreign money by any sane stretch of the imagination. It is US dollars earned in the US and spent in the US. I certainly would think that if I were in a union, my dues could and would be used and spent the same way. You are lying and exaggerating. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:22 PM Since there have been NO CLAIMS of foreign government contributions to the CofC, you are putting up a red herring., THERE ARE claims of Obama in 2008 getting foreign money from a number of sources. "Let's face it--both sides can be, and are bought. Public funding of campaigns would sole this problem, but it would have to be made law by the folks that are receiving the money. Best government money can buy, indeed. " MY POINT EXACTLY- but the PTB changed it on me- see initial post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: dick greenhaus Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:19 PM If BB can't see the difference between undocumented workers paying union dues and foreign governments making contributions, there's not much point in discussing it. Let's face it--both sides can be, and are bought. Public funding of campaigns would sole this problem, but it would have to be made law by the folks that are receiving the money. Best government money can buy, indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:11 PM Jack, YOU stated "Bruce is trying to provoke a response with lies and exaggeration. " I think, based on YOUR presentation of lies, YOU need to give me an apology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 04:09 PM Jack, Let me REPEAT: They get funds from Non-US citizens, which are prohibited form funding elections. CHECK THE MEMBERSHIPS- there are a number of both legal and illegal foreign nationals who are members of the union. They are proud of that fact- but that money is JUST as tainted as the foreign dues to the CofC, and about 9 times as much. The CofC get foreign money IN THE FORM OF DUES from foreign companies WITH BRANCHES IN THE US. Thsi is about 1/9th of the amount that Unions get from their foerign members If you make comments without bothering to read my reply, you are NOT indicating any desire for the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:52 PM Bruce, I am talking about secret money, not foreign. But even so.. You have said on this thread that a US public servants' union was receiving foreign money. You have implied that it was proportional to the money received by and spent by the USCoC in this election. That claim is silly on the face of it. What foreign entity has a stake in labor relations between US governments and their employees? Who is donating this money? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:51 PM BTW, I do find it very interesting that after only 2 days the "Kanter Group" could cut thru all of the secrecy surrounding the money that has been spent secretly??? Reminds me of the folks who after Obma had been in office 2 days were making statement like "most secretive administration in US history"... The truth will come out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:42 PM The FEC is not monitoring the "Citizen's" money, bruce... This has been reported on several news programs over the last several months, including mainstream news programs... The WSJ, BTW, is now owned by the same guy who owns FOX un-news so... ...consider the source... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:30 PM Sorry, Bobert, the facts as reported in the WSJ and by the FEC indicate you are not telling the truth. Care to provide ANY supporting information??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bobert Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM Another bogus argument that does not reflect money that was spent by outside groups and not run thru either the DNC or the RNC... BTW, those amounts are really not known because they are... ... a secret... The WP has guessed a 9 to 1 advantage from that money, which may be upwards of a billion alone... Now throw in a full time publicly aired fake-news channel that is in the Repubs back pocket and figure out what that is worth and what we are looking at is probably in the neighborhood of a 20 to 1 advantage for the Repubs and upwards of a $30B, at the very least... Throw in the hundreds of millions that Dick Armey's lobbiest firm to organize the Tea Party and we are now talking more money spent to by this current election than the GNPs of many countries... I mean, this is reality, and God only knows the real dollar costs but it was massive and it favored the Repubs in a most lopsided manner... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:21 PM " But since the Republican gerrymandering that was done in 2000, there are far, far fewer "safe" Congressional districts for the Democrats." Unsubstantiated claim- it is the STATE legislatures that reapportion, and you need to show that the STATES were more under Republican control than Democratic- I do not recall if that was the case, but it needs to be shown to have this point validifed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:18 PM The FOREIGN donations to the CofC are a matter of public record, as well. NO_ONE has said otherwise, about either the C0fC OR the unions. You refuse to adddress the point- that YOUR post of 04 Nov 10 - 01:57 PM is a "River of shit" and not supported by any factual basis. AS I HAVE SAID, YOU are making demonstratably false accusations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Genie Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:15 PM Kendall, I agree that big money can't necessarily buy a Senate seat, governorship, Presidency, etc. But it can, and I think often does, when the candidates and their past performance are not well known by the voters. And even when the mass infusions of cash don't manage to unseat an incumbent or a popular elected official, they can force that candidate or political party to divert their limited funds into campaigns that normally could rely just on ordinary news media, town halls, and routine campaigning. Sure, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorino and Ross Perot may not have been able to buy election either with their own $ or with $ millions from PACs or corporations or billionaires, but they were running against well-known politicians. And Harry Reid fended off the massively-funded "Tea Party" campaign of Sharron Angle, probably because she was such an extremist nut-case that even those who don't like Harry were even more turned off and frightened by the prospect of her becoming a Senator. Not to mention that Reid - the "devil you know" - holds a powerful position in the Senate from which to serve the state of Nevada, whereas a freshman Senator would not. But Russ Feingold - one of the most honest and respected Senators in modern times - was defeated by an all-out $$ onslaught by Karl Rove and the Republican Party and the big financial corporations (targeted because he was a fighter for campaign finance reform and for getting the $ out of Congress), and he was defeated largely because he refuses to take PAC money or donations from big corporations. Marco Rubio's win in Florida was probably largely due to his being able to self-finance a very expensive campaign. Alan Grayson, like Feingold, was the victim of a huge spending campaign by the "undisclosed donors" to "independent ads" and by the Republican Party, specifically targeted to take out the most liberal members of Congress. And David Bloomberg pretty much bought himself the Mayor's office in NYC. Money doesn't necessarily buy every election, but it often does and even more often has profound impacts on those elections. The Republicans, and their undisclosed allies (e.g. the US Chamber Of Commerce) don't HAVE to spend $ on campaigns in "safe" districts (where, say, the registration is 70% Republican). Same goes for the Democrats in some districts. But since the Republican gerrymandering that was done in 2000, there are far, far fewer "safe" Congressional districts for the Democrats. That in itself could explain why the Democrats may have outspent the Republicans in House races: they HAD to, since the 2000 redistricting gave Republicans a big advantage in terms of "safe" districts. I don't know that the aggregate figures tell a very important story. Where the big-money campaigns can have the biggest and most devastating effect is in: - "taking out" popular and well-respected governors, legislators, etc., who do not have access to nearly as much funding, by distorting or outright lying about their records - influencing the outcome of ballot measures (which can draw one side or another to the polls) - suppressing voter turnout by spewing negativity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 03:10 PM There are foreign nationals illegally working for State, federal, and local government and you can prove and document this? Are you sure you are not just pulling this argument out of your ass? (The foreign donations to the USCoC is a matter of public record.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM They get funds from Non-US citizens, which are prohibited form funding elections. CHECK THE MEMBERSHIPS- there are a number of both legal and illegal foreign nationals who are members of the union. They are proud of that fact- but that money is JUST as tainted as the foreign dues to the CofC, and about 9 times as much. OK? TRY to look at facts instead of pretending that YOUR shit is OK, after complaining that mine statements( which I support with facts) are not valid because YOU don't like them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:52 PM Unions get foreign funds? What foreign funds? The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees gets dues from non-US unions. Are you seriously saying that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:47 PM The SOURCE of the funds, like the Chamber of Commerce, is NOT differentiated. SInce the CofC is guilty of using it's foreign contributions, by reason of the fiunds being fungible, the SAME is true of the larger amount of foreign funds that the Unions get. Thus, IF CofC is guilty, the Unions MUST be as well. THE SOURCE of the funds is what is discussed- THERE ARE NO SECRET CONTRIBUTIONS- The FEC lists them all, for BOTH parties. YOU state "This thread is pretty typical of GOP BS. ...The American Chamber of Commerce spent 75,000,000 donated to their general fund and spent on ads which could not be traced back to the donors." THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE GREATER UNION CONTRIBUTIONS. Suck it up and admit that this BS is YOURS, AND not the GOP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:40 PM Well, I stand corrected. On to part two. So how is this contribution secret money? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:39 PM "The Wall Street Journal has revealed that the biggest outside spender of the 2010 election cycle is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The public-sector union is spending $87.5 million on TV ads, phone calls, and other campaign endeavors for Democrat candidates in a desperate bid to preserve the party's congressional majority. Democrats have preempted their increasingly likely November losses by accusing Republicans of using shady corporate funds to "buy" the upcoming election. These smears take on a new light now that AFSCME has been revealed as spending more than either the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or American Crossroads/Crossroads GOP, both of which having spent millions on behalf of Republican candidates. In fact, adding up the amounts disbursed by the top five spenders this season, Democrats come out $31.5 million ahead due to the combined efforts of AFSCME, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the National Education Association (NEA). That such public-sector labor unions top the list of 2010 donors should cause no little controversy. When groups like AFSCME empty their coffers to benefit certain politicians—in this case, those who will put union interests ahead of the public's—they are naturally spending the dues of their members, members who have, in many cases, been forced by this kind of politician to join the union in the first place. Since state, county and municipal employee salaries are funded with taxpayer dollars, it ends up being the general public which unwittingly donates these millions of dollars to partisan political campaigns. The Left has in Big Labor a dedicated propaganda machine, and vice-versa. Too many lawmakers have taken to passing harmful legislation that benefits no one but the union bosses, who in return spend other people's hard-earned money on reelection campaigns. This has got to stop. The news that AFSCME has played sugar-daddy to Democrats at public expense should spur voters to elect congressmen who will institute meaningful union reform and cut Big Labor down to size." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:36 PM http://workerfreedom.org/public-sector-union-tops-campaign-contributions-a3842 ALL contributions tell WHO THEY SUPPORT- The problem is the SOURCES of the contributions- and Unions get 9 times as much from foreign sources as does the Chamber of Commerce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Nov 10 - 02:31 PM "I heard that the largest spending by a Union was about 2 million dollars" You heard wrong- the LARGEST contribution was from a union. I'll go look it up for you, since you don't look for facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Nov 10 - 01:57 PM This thread is pretty typical of GOP BS. >>>And three of the TOP 5 spenders on this election WERE Unions. <<< I have heard this form exactly one place, good old neutral Bruce. But even assuming that it is true, I heard that the largest spending by a Union was about 2 million dollars. So lets say we get 6 million from those three unions. Karl Roves group spent 38 million of secret money. The American Chamber of Commerce spent 75,000,000 donated to their general fund and spent on ads which could not be traced back to the donors. Also to imply that Union money was secret money is worse than silly. The Unions are proud of who they support and are quick to say so. They want to show the rank and file that they are getting something for their dues. They also want to get their rank and file to VOTE. It is companies like BP who want to keep donations secret so that that they can show ads that say how green they are while at the same time running ads to elect de-regulators and pollution friendly legislators. Think of the trouble Target would have avoided if they had secretly rather than openly funded an anti-gay candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 04 Nov 10 - 12:21 AM The Democrats were cast as underdogs in this election. So why should it be surprising that the underdog party would spend more money? When someone's ahead by a mile he doesn't need to spend money like crazy. He just needs to spend enough to preserve his winning margin. It's the guy who's trying to catch up that needs to spend every dollar he can get his hands on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: josepp Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:19 PM Talking politics stunts your consciousness. It's divisive and unproductive. That's why I'm posting other types of topics to get people away from these. Not having much luck. Stop participating in these, folks. It only hurts you. It's like smoking. You know it's no good but you just can't seem to stop. Well, stop. Liberal and conservative are just stupid labels for the same thing as is democrat and republican. All politicians--and I don't care who they are--are dirty. You can't gain public office by being honest, fair, nice or forthright. If you don't know how to backstab, deceive, connive, double-cross, lie through your teeth, palm-grease, bullshit and appeal to people's worst traits and instincts, you can't have a career in politics. Ask yourself wny you need to fight about this garbage and what does it say about you. I'm a political atheist--I don't believe in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bill D Date: 03 Nov 10 - 08:04 PM Well, there 'was' Alan Colmes...who was for a couple of years the token 'liberal'...who was not allowed to rock the boat much. Now? "He is the host of The Alan Colmes Show, a nationally syndicated talk-radio show distributed by Fox News Radio" Funny... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:38 PM Juan Williams! LOL!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Nov 10 - 07:02 PM Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC every morning Bruce. Where is Fox's Democrat? Hmmm. Speak up, can't here you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Bill D Date: 03 Nov 10 - 06:25 PM ...and if I can get this posted before Bruce says Democrats have MSNBC.. The Conservatives practically OWN Fox News....well, in a sense, they do, with Rupert Murdoch as owner. They use Fox as their party organ, and allow lies and distortions to run....that is FAR different than a network which leans toward liberalism because it insists on accuracy, no matter where it leads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:54 PM I suppose it's true that the Democrats had to outspend the Republicans on the House election. The Democrats don't have the advantage of controlling a TV network (FoxNews) and countless radio talk shows that spew right-wing propaganda without costing the party a penny. Where's the "fairness doctrine" when you need it? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Greg F. Date: 03 Nov 10 - 05:35 PM Bruce is trying to provoke a response with lies and exaggeration. Beardie?? Lies and exaggeration? Surely you jest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:48 PM JtS, WHICH secret money? The huge amount ( ten times the Chamber's) that the Unions got from foreign sources? And three of the TOP 5 spenders on this election WERE Unions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Democrats Outspend GOP in TV Ads for House From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:46 PM I don't think either of the California GOP challengers would have been as close as they were without big money. California ain't exactly Texas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Campaign Spending in the 2010 US Elections From: kendall Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:43 PM I'm not convinced that huge amounts of money do sway close elections. Barbara Boxer just won over the challenger who spent more of her own money than any candidate in history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:32 PM The Democrats have been complaining about the secret money. It is a concern to anyone who cares about free and open Democracy. Does it concern Bruce? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:25 PM And Obama spent a lot more than McCain in 2008, so I guess HIS election should be suspect as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: Don Firth Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:20 PM BIG MONEY, mostly from out of state, tried to get Patty Murray, Washington State's senior senator (Democrat) replaced by Republican gadfly Dino Rossi. They spend 26 times as much money, mostly on attack ads lying about Murray's record, to defeat Murray as Murray's supporters were able to spend on her campaign. As of today (Wednesday) the race is too close to call, but Murray is currently ahead by a narrow margin. Mail-in ballots still to be counted. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:16 PM " In all House races, Republican-leaning outside groups spent $38 million on television, compared with $13 million by Democratic-oriented groups. But Democratic candidates outspent Republican ones, $97 million to $49 million. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also outspent the national Republican Congressional Committee, $30 million to $26 million. " So the amount spent BY DEMOCRATS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS was the greater amount, in the House races. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:14 PM Bobert, Read the article- "Democrats Outspend G.O.P. in TV Ads in House Races" So the House, which the Dems outspent the Repbulicans on, was were they lost control. Sounds like the Democrats were the Boss Hoggs of the situation- and failed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: GUEST,Bobert at the library... Date: 03 Nov 10 - 04:00 PM Opps... Ain't just the Kock Brothers... This was an avalanche of Boss Hog money to the Repubs... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: GUEST Date: 03 Nov 10 - 03:57 PM Hey BB- The fact that private individuals (like Koch) and big-spending independent (?) organizations outspent the Dems doesn't seem to count. Why not sit back and just gloat quietly.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: gnu Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:56 PM I wonder if Garge ever uses a puter at the libary? Well, I mean one of his staffers, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:55 PM He said, "BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy." Un-American disrespect for our legitimate Democratic system! He is trolling for We, the America loving people! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: gnu Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:52 PM JtS... it took me a read to figure it out... but, trolling? lies? exaggeration? HE didn't say anything. Cam down me zon eh wha? Ye can't jig witout trowin a line eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: GUEST,Bobert at the library... Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:51 PM The book was great... I especially enjoyed reading how George Bush not only ripped off the tax payers of Arlington, Texas but then turned around and ripped off the IRS... In other times George Bush would be behind bars... No, not that kind... Like jail bars... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: Donuel Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM watch a movie for free on me~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:29 PM Well, campaign spending keeps employees of the media out of the food banks and spending to help the economy. What the purpose of this thread is supposed to be, dunno, Danno. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Nov 10 - 03:18 PM I do not think that the title of this thread accurately reflects wthat was in the article posted. The article basically says that the Republicans forced the Democrats to spend by spending early on attacks. Bruce is trying to provoke a response with lies and exaggeration. Isn't responding to that simply troll feeding? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: Desert Dancer Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:48 PM Vote for Bloat (a vintage piece, from Woody Guthrie) ~ Becky in Long Beach with thanks to the American Folklife Center on Facebook |
|
Subject: BS: The BEST government MONEY can buy... From: beardedbruce Date: 02 Nov 10 - 12:44 PM A generic thread to put comments about the 'Greening of America' http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/politics/02donate.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss |
