Patterico's Pontifications

11/29/2008

Shocka: Obama’s Small-Donor Base a Myth?!?! Who’da Thunk It?

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,Obama — Patterico @ 10:42 am

The L.A. Times Top of the Ticket blog reports: Obama’s small donor base image is a myth, new study reveals.

Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama’s amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.

Except, it turns out, that’s not really true. . .. . [T]he nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute just issued a detailed study of Obama’s donor base and its giving. And that’s what the Institute found, to its own surprise.

“The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama’s finances,” said CFI’s executive director Michael Malbin, admitting that his organization also was fooled. “The reality of Obama’s fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.”

Who woulda thunk it?

Well, OK. Even without the benefit of a New Study, the Washington Post and this here blog were reporting this in October. Before the election . . . when it mattered.

At the L.A. Times blog, Andrew Malcolm says: “[W]e’ll see how broad-based news coverage of this real reality is.”

Well, we already saw how broad-based the coverage was before the election.

102 Responses to “Shocka: Obama’s Small-Donor Base a Myth?!?! Who’da Thunk It?”

  1. I spent $700 million and all I got was the Clinton Cabinet?

    JVW (bff0a4)

  2. Well maybe that $700 million will get us an appointment of Obama’s favorite artist Ludacris to head the National Endowment for the Arts.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  3. The phrase “broad-based news coverage” most precisely refers to the broad, middle-aged posteriors in the chairs at the Los Angeles Times.

    Official Internet Data Office (1fba4d)

  4. Well maybe that $700 million will get us an appointment of Obama’s favorite artist Ludacris to head the National Endowment for the Arts.

    Nah, the Clinton dominance will continue and it will be Barbra Streisand.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  5. Ludacris may actually be an improvement over what the NEA’s been up to in recent years.

    Dmac (e30284)

  6. Hey Dmac, actually the NEA has really turned around under Dana Gioia. There is a nice appreciation of him over at National Review Online.

    JVW (bff0a4)

  7. Aw I was hoping for a gangsta-style inauguration where Obama struts up to the stage to a new remix of “Hail to Y’all Mufuckin’ Chief, Bitches” and then he fires a pistol in the air and says, “Aight crackas, listen up! Secretary of Defense Minister Louis Farrakhan has a few words for you!!” and the camera pans to a crowd of crunchy white liberal tools in the crowd with streams of wetness cascading down their pants.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  8. I still want to know how much was contibuted from noncitizens, how much exceeded legal limits, etc. The chances of an investigation are slim to none given Obama’s Chicago political heritage and lack of commitment to transparency.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  9. It’s just insane this krap isn’t a big deal. Anyone.. anyone ? This clown should have his ass hauled in for a legal overhaul. God damn Obama.

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  10. Obama struts up to the stage to a new remix of “Hail to Y’all Mufuckin’ Chief, Bitches” and then he fires a pistol in the air and says, “Aight crackas, listen up! Secretary of Defense Minister Louis Farrakhan has a few words for you!!” and the camera pans to a crowd of crunchy white liberal tools in the crowd with streams of wetness cascading down their pants.

    Beautiful, Jack! Good times.

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  11. VN- I was always more of a Jeffersons fan than Good Times! :)

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  12. You know it. George Jefferson, awesome.

    “Fish don’t fry in the kitchen / Beans don’t burn on the grill / Took a whole lotta tryin’ / Just to get up that hill.” Dedicated to The Ears, of course.

    Or this one.

    Marla Gibbs: How come we overcame and nobody told me?

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  13. ________________________________

    I like the LA Times blogger’s tongue-in-cheek flippancy:


    In fact, Obama’s base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush’s in 2004 — Obama had 26% and the great Republican satan 25%.

    Through the Democratic National Convention, the Institute estimates, Obama received $119 million from genuine small donors, an impressive sum, to be sure.

    But not as impressive as the $210 million he’d raised by then from bundlers and large donors.

    I always suspected that much of Obama’s money must have originated from fat cats in charge of various labor unions and latte-sniffing limousine liberals, throughout the world of Hollywood and academia in particular.

    I hope that crowd’s income taxes get raised to the hilt, perhaps up to the levels found — and currently being legislated for — in Britain.

    Mark (411533)

  14. Ah the wisecrackin’ Florence, next door neighbor Mr. Bentley, and of course the ahead-of-its-time, progressive, multiracial couple Helen and Tom “Honky” Willis.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  15. If the press had applied even a small bit of objectivity to their reporting,this bogus “grass roots campaign” rhetoric would have been exposed for the cut and paste spin that it was:

    Obama Visits Billionaires Row
    San Francisco, April 6, 2008
    http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

    According to this article (and many others), Obama’s campaign is claiming he raises his money from small donors:
    “When you’re given the gift of advocacy, you don’t sell it to the highest bidder,” Mrs. Obama said. Mrs. Obama stressed how her husband has relied on “regular folks” instead of big donors. Instead of thousand-dollar donations, the Obama campaign has raised millions on small checks of $20 to $50. Mrs. Obama sees this participatory attitude as a new trend.
    Wait just a minute there. If you do the math, on just this one day in the Bay Area, Obama went to four events, three of which had $2,300 minimum donations per ticket, and the other $1,000 minimum per ticket. Each of the events, from the various descriptions, held as many as 400 people (the Getty mansion has a ballroom that reportedly seats at least 300). 400 x $2,300 = $920,000 per event, times three events = $2.76 million, plus the other event, which undoubtedly puts him over $3 million in contributions for this one day alone. And who knows how many other similar days he schedules in other parts of the country.

    Michelle Obama (and other Obama campaign spokespeople) aren’t telling the truth. It seems that a signficant portion of Obama’s monthly campaign contributions are coming from “large donors”‘ — i.e. rich people, not just the “$20 to $50″ donations they’re constantly bragging about.

    This was reported clear back in April and ignored
    by the democratic activist that call themselves
    “journalist”.

    Look at some of these “small donors”:

    Norman Stone, heir to insurance tycoon W. Clement Stone, 27xx Broadway.
    Peter Haus, Levi Strauss heir, 28xx Broadway. In 1996, Haas’ Levi holdings were valued in a news report at $2.2 billion.
    Peter Sperling, U. of Phoenix heir, 28xx Broadway. In 2003 he had about $1.5 billion.
    Larry Ellison, Oracle founder, 28xx Broadway. In 2003 Forbes set his worth at $18 billion.
    Gordon Getty, Getty Oil heir, 28xx Broadway. In 2003 Forbes Magazine estimated his fortune at $2.1 billion.

    George Jewett, Weyerhaeuser heir, 29xx Broadway.

    Obama’s spin and lies were out there for all to see,just not exposed by the media as well as that crack staff that found out Palin bought a tanning
    bed while she was governor.

    Another Obama flip-flop: Campaign raising “soft money” from big donors
    posted at 11:20 am on August 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/16/another-obama-flip-flop-campaign-raising-soft-money-from-big-donors/

    Can anyone remember a reform pledge Barack Obama hasn’t broken? First, he insisted that he would remain within the public-financing system, as late as February, then suddenly pronounced it “broken” when Obama didn’t want to stay within its spending limits. Next, his campaign went “negative” first against John McCain when he had pledged to eschew such advertising. Now Barack Obama and his team have begun raising millions of dollars in “soft money” from unions and PACs despite his sanctimonious depredation of such donations just two months ago:

    Obama has regularly criticized politicians seeking large donations outside the framework of campaign finance regulations — so-called soft money — while touting the virtues of relying on small donations.
    But campaign officials last month reluctantly decided they had to take a hand in raising large donations from individuals, unions and corporations. Some of the donors get special bundles of perks, including use of the party suites at Denver’s Invesco Field, as well as special policy briefings by Obama advisors, choice hotel rooms and party invitations.

    Only a blind idiot views this as “hope and change”.

    Baxter Greene (8035ae)

  16. And, the beauty of it all, since he went the private donation route v. public financing, there will be no comprehensive audit of his donars/expenditures, and we’ll never find out who was really pouring the money in, and in what amounts.
    No one is going to take the trouble to try to track down all of the phony credit card donations to their actual source.
    Richard Nixon would love this group for their audacity.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  17. So you have the best Marxist puppet president elect Isalmic/terrorist money can buy. We have at least 4 years to keep saying ‘told ya so’.

    Scrapiron (ce69ff)

  18. From the report cited, but not linked to, for some reason: Half of Obama’s money came from donations of less than $200.

    http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216

    parsnip (1e884c)

  19. Obama’s pathetic 180 on campaign finance was just one of many bogus claims that his friends in the media gave him a pass on:

    Obama takes six figures from Abramoff firm
    posted at 11:04 am on April 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/14/obama-takes-six-figures-from-abramoff-firm/

    Barack Obama has pledged to end the influence of lobbyists, but that doesn’t keep him from fundraising at the offices of one of the most notoriously corrupt lobbyists in years. Newsday reported over the weekend that Obama took about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees at their Miami offices last October. The firm made headlines when its biggest lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, admitted to several counts of corruption and was sentenced to prison:

    Liberals still whine and cry about the corruption
    of lobbyist that only bothers them when Republicans are the ones taking the money.

    Obama went on and on about how he would not bow down to K street and the lobbyist that control DC.
    More smoke and mirrors that his friends in the media helped him slide by on.

    The Audacity of Hype

    by Matthew Cooper | See Archive
    An inside look at how Obama’s much-touted ban on campaign contributions from lobbyists has really worked.
    http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/washington/2008/09/18/Obamas-Fundraising-Tactics?tid=true
    HIGH ROAD

    Obama’s ban on lobbyist donations sounds noble, but does it really curb corporate influence.

    So now that he’s scoring political points for the ban, what impact has it actually had?

    Virtually none.

    The campaign has no problem accepting money from the spouses of Washington lobbyists. A database search conducted for this column by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign-finance issues, found that more than 20 spouses of prominent Washington lobbyists have donated to the Obama campaign, including the wives of Dan Glickman, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America; Norman Brownstein, a prominent Denver-based lawyer who has lobbied for Oracle, Toshiba, and Comcast; and Stuart Pape of Patton Boggs, Washington’s foremost lobbying firm, who has lobbied for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and the Smokeless Tobacco Council.

    The campaign accepts money from lobbyists registered in state capitals. It accepts money from partners at law firms that engage in lobbying. It accepts money from the C.E.O.’s, chairs, and officers of corporations, but not their lobbyists. Obama has received more than $627,000 in contributions from employees of Goldman Sachs, including, for example, $2,300 (the maximum contribution allowed) from the likes of managing director George Butcher. But Michael Berman, a registered lobbyist (and a former adviser to Walter Mondale), cannot give money to Obama because his firm, the Duberstein Group, has lobbied on behalf of Goldman Sachs on energy and tax issues. Aren’t such policies a little inconsistent with the ban? “Maybe,” said the senior Obama official. “But it’s important symbolism.”

    I recently spoke with a very successful registered Washington lobbyist, a Democrat who asked not to be named in this piece for fear of diminishing his influence with a possible Obama administration. Even though the Obama campaign wouldn’t accept a check from the lobbyist personally, he says, Obama aides asked him to help them raise money in other ways. “They wanted my list,” the lobbyist says, referring to the many donors the lobbyist has solicited for other campaigns. “Since then, they’ve asked if I could organize fundraisers but said that I couldn’t donate.”

    Did Couric, Gibson,or the love fest that was Matthews/Olberman ever grill Obama on his double talk and obvious spin about dealing with lobbyist.Any follow ups at all in their questions.
    I can’t recall that any supposed national “journalist” ever pressed Obama on any of this spin about not taking money from lobbyist.

    The MSM was to busy investigating whether Trig was really Palin’s baby to have time to call out their anointed one on his lies and spin.

    Baxter Greene (8035ae)

  20. The type of people that voted for Obama are the same kind of people that are stingy with the giving?

    Shocka!

    Icy Truth (b7d162)

  21. Yes, and if I give Obama $2000, in ten, individual $200 donations, then he has received ten, $200, donations, from a $2000 donar!
    If you actually took the trouble to read the report, you would find that almost half of those less-than-$200 donations aggregate to individuals who gave much more in total. That is why his small-donar percentage is 26% of ALL donations.
    Plus, many of those small donations have been traced back to a specific credit card where the donations have aggregated to amounts in excess of Federal donation limits, which opens the campaign, and specific donars, to Federal Campaign Finance charges.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  22. Comment by Another Drew — 11/29/2008 @ 12:50 pm

    My post is in direct response to that of the vegetating moron @ 12:37pm.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  23. I understand the report just fine, AD.

    It’s the people who think it is somehow news that are confused.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  24. Comment by parsnip — 11/29/2008 @ 12:52 pm

    Your lack of comprhension of the news value of anything is not news, either.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  25. Typical lib reaction from the collard greens. When cornered by the truth simply say “move along”, and it will all magically go away.

    Icy Truth (b7d162)

  26. “From the report cited, but not linked to, for some reason: Half of Obama’s money came from donations of less than $200.”

    Did you READ the report, you intellectual midget? Only 26% of the DONORS to Obama’s campaign gave amounts upto but not above $200. 74% of his donors gave above that amount including close to half who gave above $1000.
    Your stupidity is beyond parody.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  27. [...] Think We Are Gonna Have to Call Him President BS It turns out that Obama did NOT get the vast majority of his contributions from ordinary folk: Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama’s amazing campaign money machine was dominated [...]

    I Think We Are Gonna Have to Call Him President BS « Penraker (2dc949)

  28. “I understand the report just fine, AD.”

    No, you obviously do not thus your trade mark snide goal post moving when your complete lack of anything resembling an ability to think or articulate a substantive point is pointed out to you time and again.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  29. More Obama spin about his “grass roots”campaign:

    Fact Check
    Obama’s Oil Spill

    March 31, 2008
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_obamas_oil_spill.html
    Obama says he doesn’t take money from oil companies. We say that’s a little too slick.

    Technically, that’s true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

    We find the statement misleading:
    Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
    Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

    That sure is a lot of money coming from big oil that Obama brags that he is not in the pocket of.
    It’s not about ethics and really bringing “change” to the election system with Obama and his supporters,it’s about playing word games that is okay with liberals as long as they can get away with it.

    This guy is not only a lobbyist,he was lobbyist of the year in 2006.

    Waiting For Gutman
    http://perfunction.typepad.com/perfunction/2008/09/waiting-for-gut.html

    So, who is Howard Gutman, Obama’s pointman on perfect parenthood? Mastermind of the “proper attack” on Gov. Sarah Palin?
    Possibly one of the biggest, bloodiest scalps McCain could tack to the wall:
    Official member of Barack Obama’s campaign. You know, one of those folks eligible for something Obama calls “firing” should they attack a candidate’s family — properly or otherwise.
    Only one of 35 bundlers to raise over $500,000 for Obama, on par with Hollywood moguls Daivd Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Not only a registered lobbyist, but Lobbyist of the Year (2006)
    Not only Lobbyist of the Year, but he played a lobbyist (himself) on HBO’s K Street
    Did I mention he likes to lobby?
    And that Obama does not?
    “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
    — Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

    Now this is change the blind and stupid can believe in.

    Baxter Greene (8035ae)

  30. What I need to know:
    Who paid for Sarah’s wardrobe?
    Votes? Meh, not so much.

    Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab)

  31. People who made several small donations were obviously squeezing a little out of each paycheck for Obama, Jack.

    Now that’s patriotism!

    Your cynicism in this time of hope n’ change is inappropriate.

    Which isn’t a crime…yet.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  32. Yep keep shifting and proving what a colossal f’n idiot you are. You’re not even bad performance art.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  33. Your inability to read simple statistics, dimwit.

    Now that’s stupidity!

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  34. People who made several small donations were obviously squeezing a little out of each paycheck for Obama, Jack.

    Or, more likely, they are avoiding having to file the disclosure forms by continually submitting small donations instead of putting in a large one. You probably weren’t reading Patterico last fall, but if you were you would have seen several posts (mostly from WLS) on how Obama donors were utilizing fake names, questionable bundling practices, etc. to evade campaign finance regulations.

    It’s sweet that you want to think that it was a bunch of people taking $199 out of each monthly paycheck. Do you assume that the tooth fairy delivers to their houses too?

    JVW (bff0a4)

  35. What’s hard to understand, Jack?

    Half of Obama’s donations were for less than $200.

    Which is a record.

    Maybe if you sent me your Rush Limbaugh sekret decoder ring, I could see why you non-partisans are making such a fuss over this non-story.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  36. Yes the ability of people of wealth to repeatedly send $200 donations is almost as big a phenomenon as your blanket stupidity and need to shift to snark every time your dense ignorance is pointed out to you.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  37. Rich people don’t dribble their donations, jack, they just write one big check.

    Time is money, you know.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  38. Here are some more of those “grass roots” Obama supporters.Communist,dictators,terrorist groups,and hollywood friends that Obama was more than happy to take money and support from:

    Radicals, Terrorists And Tyrants Of The World Root For Obama
    April, 17, 2008 — nicedeb
    http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/terrorists-and-tyrants-of-the-world-root-for-obama/

    Jodie Evans:
    The head of a radical group that funds and supports Islamic terrorists as well as an America-bashing South American socialist leader has bundled more than $50,000 for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
    Jodie Evans, co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, is a huge Obama supporter who has personally given his campaign the federal limit ($2,300) and continues to collect big bucks—$50,000 and counting—from friends and associates in an effort to help the Illinois senator, a favorite among Latin American socialist leaders, move into the White House.
    Code Pink also gave $600,000 to the families of Iraqi terrorists in Fallujah, whom they claimed were fighting for their homes.

    FARC:
    From the two lap top computers obtained during an ambush back in early March:
    According to information obtained, FARC Terrorists were hoping and expecting that Barack Obama would win the US elections in November because he was most aligned with the Colombian Marxist group.
    The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support “Plan Colombia” nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement).

    Yea, I get by with a little help from my friends!!

    You can bet he would not take any money from the Minute Men though.

    One thing is for sure,Obama is consistant with the “do as I say not as I do”democratic party.

    Despite reforms, Congress hides $3.5B in defense earmarks
    By David Heath and Christine Willmsen
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008257178&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=favorfactory12&date=20081012

    No matter who wins, the next president promises to take back Washington from powerful interests and lobbyists.
    It is the same stirring promise Congress made last year when — rocked by scandal and under new leadership — lawmakers passed what they trumpeted as some of the most significant ethics reforms in years.
    Key among those reforms: rules requiring lawmakers, for the first time, to disclose their earmarks — federal dollars they were quietly doling out as favors.
    But time after time, Congress exploited loopholes or violated those rules, a Seattle Times investigation has found. An in-depth examination of the 2008 defense bill found $8.5 billion in earmarks. Of those, 40 percent — $3.5 billion — were hidden.

    • The House broke the new rules at least 110 times by failing to disclose who was getting earmarks, making it difficult for the public to judge whether the money is being spent wisely.

    Last year, as public cries for reform grew louder, Congress enacted civil and criminal penalties for lobbyists who failed to detail their activities on federal disclosure forms. Yet lawmakers included no penalties for themselves if they failed to disclose earmarks.
    If Congress were serious about reform, it would close the loopholes, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

    Now that’s “change”
    Nancy and Harry rip Republicans and tell the nation that they are bringing reform,only to double the corruption and have their sheep follow them to the voting booth.

    But move on,this is just a distraction.
    Did you hear that Palin gave an interview in front of a Turkey cone machine.How dare she actually mix with and highlight the working middle class.
    This has to be exposed!!!

    Baxter Greene (8035ae)

  39. Yeah, so what, big deal.
    A democrat gamed the system and bought the presidency.
    Sur-f**king- prise.
    Nobody is going to do anything about his lies and flip-flops or anything. All you lawyers who post here know that. The system is purposefully intricate and arcane so as to provide the ability to ‘do whatever it takes to win.” Regardless of rule or regulation.
    I’ll just wait until the Democrats completely screw the country into the ground. Wait for the masses to become completely fed-up and then I’m gonna corner the market on Pitchforks and Torches.Hmmm.. I like that for a name.

    paul from fl (4dd8c4)

  40. Yeah, I like it a lot..thats me from now on.

    PitchforksnTorches (4dd8c4)

  41. I heard some guy name John Galt gave a lot of money.

    Stephen Macklin (f552f7)

  42. and, Will Power!

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  43. Yeah, so what, big deal.
    A democrat gamed the system and bought the presidency.
    Sur-f**king- prise.

    You are right, pf-n-t, but I prefer the old days when the Dems gamed the system, stole an election, then had the self-awareness to openly brag about it. Nowadays they do it and then try to pretend otherwise. Where’s the elan in that?

    JVW (bff0a4)

  44. #

    From the report cited, but not linked to, for some reason: Half of Obama’s money came from donations of less than $200.

    http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=216

    Comment by parsnip — 11/29/2008 @ 12:37 pm

    As
    Comment by Jack Klompus — 11/29/2008 @ 1:00 pm
    #stated,you need to include the whole quote for an
    honest representation of this quote Micheal Moore
    wannabe.

    How in the world could somebody use a report that states in it’s title:

    Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors

    and states this above the fold:

    “The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama’s finances,” said CFI’s executive director Michael J. Malbin. “The reality of Obama’s fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.”

    as a defense that Obama’s campaign was financed by “grass roots small donations”.

    Just another example of why liberals have to constantly tell everybody how smart they are,because it doesn’t show.

    Baxter Greene (8035ae)

  45. Rich people can afford to pay more, Baxter.

    That’s why we have a progressive income tax.

    Which the radical right now seems to approve of based on this post.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  46. “Half of Obama’s donations were for less than $200.

    Which is a record.”

    A record what, meaningless statement?

    Given that only 26% of his contributions came from donors giving less than $200, the 50% cited by harelip is completely meaningless. Also, without opening up his campaign records to outside examination, that 26% figure is a highly suspect figure.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  47. “Rich people can afford to pay more, Baxter.”

    Because rich people don’t have mortgages, tax obligations, and living expenses that normal people do, right harelip?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  48. Ah daley, if only your knack for coming up with lame nicknames translated into political power, or an income, right?

    You could use the income to buy a book to brush up on your elementary math skills.

    Large donations are, you know, bigger than small ones!

    What a revelation!

    parsnip (1e884c)

  49. The entire “image” is based upon a myth. He was the perfect candidate because he had zero record to attack (other than his background). He was willing to switch his stance on every issue every time his lips moved and the American people are so dull, complacent, gullible and in need of a saviour that they gobbled it up like apple pie. Sheeple. I’ll be busy clinging to my guns and religion. Obama can lick the dingleberries and clingons. He’s not going to save anyone.

    All those people still expecting all the promises he made during his campaign? Hahahahah. You’re the fools who gave our country away.

    chep (310603)

  50. I’m beginning to believe that parsnip is stef reincarnated. Stef had a habit of defectling, tu quoque, and deliberately misstating the positions of others.

    Maybe they went to the same seminar.

    Steverino (647a08)

  51. This entire campaign was about selling attractive images and not much to do with Obama himself. I am disappointed that the MSM has continued to lick Obama’s feet and call it a privilege, but what else can be expected? We now have an MSM that is invested in trumpeting his successes and hiding his failings and untruths.

    So, where’s his birth certificate? Where are his college records? Why is he so secretive about simple things such as these? I wasn’t very curious at first, but now I want very much to see these documents.

    Anonymous (b965a3)

  52. and deliberately misstating the positions of others

    That line sums up every election campaign the Republicans have run for the past eight years.

    Why am I not surprised they continue to accuse others of using their tactics.

    It’s Karl Rove’s number one rule.

    Accuse your opponents of doing exactly what you are doing.

    *yawn*

    parsnip (1e884c)

  53. That line sums up every election campaign the Republicans have run for the past eight years.

    There, my friends, is a prime example of tu quoque

    For the record, parsnip, I am not a fan of Rove, and I don’t engage in the deflection and tu quoque that you seem so fond of. Since you seem to think that I’ve accused you of doing something I’m doing, you obviously have examples to cite.

    No?

    What a surprise.

    Steverino (647a08)

  54. I’ve been reading that all this fed spending will cause the DOW to soar to 11,000 or so, but just a big bear trap before huge drop. All I’m am sure of is that buy and hold will not be the way to go.

    Isn’t parsnip a root veggie that the Unabomber grew and survived on in Montana? Our troll and the veggie have much in common.

    How much money did those ragheads in the Gaza strip working phone banks raise for obama? Let’s see how O is handled by despots such as Chavez, Putin and ImaDamnNutJob.

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  55. …and so spoketh, the master of projection.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  56. Again, #55 is a response to #52.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  57. parsnip,

    You have a writing tic that I’ve only seen in two other regular commenters here, and only one of them expresses views similar to yours. Anything you want to share?

    DRJ (a50047)

  58. The Unabomber was ten times the terrorist Bill Ayers turned out to be. This can only be explained by the Unabomber’s Harvard degree!

    Official Internet Data Office (85f70b)

  59. Parsnip is alphie. He shits in comments around the ‘net, until people are sick of him, then changes his name and pulls the same crap again.

    The inability to acknowledge a fact placed in front of him — if it goes against Democrat talking points — is one of his hallmarks. As are “$700 billion”, “bombing weddings”, and wishing US servicemen would die while they’re posted overseas.

    I suspect, DRJ, that you’ll never see “parsnip” again. You may, however, see a “wesley” come around and start acting the same way.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  60. Parsnip is alphie.

    No. Parsnip is Staunch Brayer.

    DRJ, you beat me to it. I was waiting for him to incriminate himself more.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (b63e53)

  61. That’s funny Rob.

    I was accused of being someone called “actus” today, too.

    I find all right wing posters to be indistinguishable. Ditto the blogs themselves. You see a story on one right wing blog, you see it on all right wing blogs.

    That makes your constant cries for censorship understandable, I suppose.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  62. Perhaps it if you were to conribute an actual arguement to your idiotic posts, we’d be willing to keep you around…

    Sadly, if you are indeed the late, entirely un-lamented Staunch Brayer, then you are congenitally incapable of such a feat.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  63. DRJ, you cannot be surprised by more Tiresome Trollish Behavior. It’s happened many times before, and I just don’t understand why they post the same stuff…and possess such extreme levels of psychological projection.

    I think that there are three or four of these people, with shifting ‘nyms.

    Probably talking all contrarian is a power-trip thing for them. But the hinky-jinky arguments, which—when followed by the bright light of past posts—results in subject changing…well, it is as tiring as the various TdJs claim about other posters!

    Steverino, you shouldn’t use expressions that confuse the trolls. It makes them feel inferior, and so they project more. Even though you are quite correct.

    Happy Thanksgiving, by the way, DRJ. You remain a class act.

    Eric Blair (8358d5)

  64. The Root Vegetable of Trolldom writes:

    “…That makes your constant cries for censorship understandable, I suppose….”

    Censorship? About DRJ???!!!

    Cue the famous line from Inigo Montoya to Wallace Shawn’s character in “The Princess Bride” please.

    Amazing.

    Eric Blair (8358d5)

  65. If the number of visitors to right wing blogs continue to drop off at their current rate, I might be the last commenter here come the New year, Scott.

    Oh yeah, one of your fellow “protect me, mommy!” right wingers just accused me of being someone called Wesley just a minute ago on PW.

    You guys are such shameless babies.

    Or the same whiner posting under different names.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  66. parsnip, projection seems to be your primary personality characteristic.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  67. Do you are all hear some kind of trollish buzzing? The sad part is that people who post this kind of thing generally are angry mid to late 20s folk who don’t have a lot on their plates. After two and half decades of being told they are precious, they now need to get jobs. Strangely, no one is offering them great positions of power and influence.

    And bosses, generally speaking, are far, far, FAR different from coddling teacher and professors (like folks like me are forced to be). No extensions, no late work, that sort of thing. Your opinion is NOT worth the same as everyone else’s in real world jobs.

    Hence the poorly hidden animosity, the need to play silly extremist word games, and the baiting.

    If qdpsteve is around, he would have the best way to describe this TdJ, given that last sentence.

    On the other hand, this troll will no doubt respond (as we have seen so many times before) that he or she is a Captain of Industry, travels the world, plays golf every day, blah, blah, blah….

    Which begs the question: why all the literally sophomoric posts?

    Parsnip, here is an idea: rather than post reactively, why not post something without insult, exaggeration, or braggadocio? You could probably even ask Patterico about creating your own post. If you can keep away from hyperbole and insult, that is.

    In other words, act like DRJ does. If you want to fight, fine. Some folks enjoy insulting you. But you notice that DRJ never does. I wonder why?

    Eric Blair (8358d5)

  68. Hey parsnip, gotta love how people here can’t believe there are more than one opposing view point at this site. Same people that still can’t except Palin not being VP :) I guess.

    Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been accused of using a different name and called a troll.

    My Patterico brothers and sisters need to realize that the Republican party needs our opposing view points to pull itself out of it’s current doldrums.

    Good luck with these kind of suspicions guys.

    Oiram (57b818)

  69. #68 “Accept” not except……… I guess that’s how you know it’s me right DRJ?

    Oiram (57b818)

  70. Hey parsnip, gotta love how people here can’t believe there are more than one opposing view point at this site

    and

    Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been accused of using a different name and called a troll.

    Moron.

    I’d point out that aphrael and Leviticus both have posting priv’s at Jury Talks Back. The differing opinions that are put forth rationally get respected.

    You two simps get the restect you earn.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  71. #70 Calls me a “Moron” and then says “You two simps get the restect you earn.

    I sure hope Obama does a good job, because if this is the attitude of the Republican party, and Obama fails, we will be in a sinking ship for years to come…………..

    Unless America accepts a third party.

    Oiram (57b818)

  72. Oh, I’d forgotten about actus.

    Here’s a clue, alphie — if you’d stick to one name, and not go where you’ve been banned, then no one would be questioning your honesty or identity.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  73. Rob gives us a nice example of the thought patterns of the small-minded neighborhood informant so criticl to the functioning of the police state in the old Soviet Union.

    parsnip (1e884c)

  74. BTW toadstool, you will never be the last commenter here.
    Here’s a news flash for you:
    Right-wing Rethuglicans don’t have a psychological need to constantly comment about endless topics;
    we actually have real lives that provide interest and value to our existence.
    We enjoy coming here when it suits us, and you do provide some degree of comic relief.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  75. Partisnip Hack gives us a sterling example of a brain free of the constraints of discipline, study, responsibility and ethics and impenetrable to evidence, reason, logic or fact.

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (b63e53)

  76. I believe the correct designation for your kind is now “Say it louder” Republicans, AD.

    Paul, or is that really “Scott” or “Eric” or “Another Drew”, have anything constructive to add here?

    parsnip (1e884c)

  77. Paul, or is that really “Scott” or “Eric” or “Another Drew”, have anything constructive to add here?

    What’s-a-matter, Partisnip Hack? Don’t like having the truth pointed out?

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (b63e53)

  78. “Paul, or is that really “Scott” or “Eric” or “Another Drew”, have anything constructive to add here?”

    Harelip – why should others adhere to standards you never live up to yourself?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  79. Comment by parsnip — 11/29/2008 @ 7:29 pm

    Say what louder?

    My hearing is fine; though, the arrangement of your fantasies into cohesive thoughts leaves a lot to be desired, and contributes to the head-shaking on our part.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  80. It would be interesting if DRJ would confirm the multiple identities that turnip/sniffles/alphie has posted under.

    JD (5f0e11)

  81. Comment by JD — 11/29/2008 @ 7:37 pm

    You might be asking for the impossible, JD.
    Such extensive data retrieval could cause her PC to just lock-up!

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  82. DRJ/Patterico/Anyone with posting privileges, have you checked the IP address of parsnip to make sure we don’t have a self-recycled banned commenter here?

    Paul (creator of "Staunch Brayer") (b63e53)

  83. You would think that the trolls would not feel compelled to troll now that Teh Messiah has won, and the oceans have quit rising.

    JD (5f0e11)

  84. JD…USC 38 v ND 3 (4th).
    Sorry about that.

    This is why we don’t need an NFL team, we already have a professional football team.

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  85. “You could use the income to buy a book to brush up on your elementary math skills.

    Large donations are, you know, bigger than small ones!”

    harelip – I thought you claimed to understand the article. Does it hurt to be so stupid?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  86. AD – Syracuse beat ND too. SC could be playing for a national title, if they had not beshat themselves at Oregon State.

    JD (5f0e11)

  87. Comment by daleyrocks — 11/29/2008 @ 7:55 pm

    Some single-cell & simple-structure animal species do not evidence any indication of pain.
    The amazing part is that it is able to utilyze a keyboard.

    Call Ripley’s!

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  88. Comment by JD — 11/29/2008 @ 7:57 pm

    Syracuse?

    That’s embarrassing.
    Is it true that Syracuse has a co-ed football program?

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  89. Look. Louis Farrakhan creams over The One’s name. Autobiographies written by the AA wonder cite Muslim schooling, the mother’s Muslim husbands, Muslim sibs and strong anti-white identification.

    Grandma died but without the usual nutsoid media fanfare, let alone an obituary. Think People cover story from Hawaii complete with photos of the sensitive Obama clan dropping dirt on her box. Oh wait. The girls didn’t go and neither did Michelle. Must have been a business trip.

    The birth certificate is pieced together and incomplete, not stamped, not certified and not official. Barack-elect is a hood ornament, a cypher, a phony, anti-American and a telegenic fake. Some people voted for him because of this.

    But everyone hold your breath. There probably won’t be an I-toldyouso backlash. He’s got the Clintons and the bundlers to make his decisions. The idz that voted this guy in like the Soros agenda and the smart ones are thrilled it’s happening now. The dumb ones will be surprised when he fails to deliver what’s promised. But after the big MLK blowout in January, he either will. . . or he won’t. . . deliver change and hope. Seriously, some of us skipped ahead to the last chapter.

    This fool must serve out his 4 years. Although for the AVS nonsense alone he should be hauled before a judge.

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  90. I think Leinart took a pay cut to go to Arizona.

    Boy he sure disappeared.

    Da'Shiznit (089453)

  91. BTW, JD…
    Oregon…65..693 total yds.
    OSU……38

    Another Drew (d5aa9e)

  92. Rob gives us a nice example of the thought patterns of the small-minded neighborhood informant so criticl to the functioning of the police state in the old Soviet Union.

    I’m not calling for anyone to be arrested. I’m asking for you to show the balls to stick to one identity and to respect the private property rights of people who have told you not to comment on their sites.

    But, hey, being able to comprehend the written word was never one of alphie’s skills. Another point you have in common with him “parsnip”.

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  93. I’m not calling for anyone to be arrested. I’m asking for you to show the balls to stick to one identity

    Reminds me of Ann Coulter and her BROKEN JAW… any chance Thuggy and his crew did it? Seems a little coincidental, right after she announces her media step-by-step election book.

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  94. snippy…

    “He needs to be horse-whipped, ’cause hangin’s too good for him.”

    Another Drew (bb6514)

  95. #

    Rich people can afford to pay more, Baxter.

    That’s why we have a progressive income tax.

    Which the radical right now seems to approve of based on this post.

    Comment by parsnip — 11/29/2008 @ 2:45 pm

    Hilarious!!

    Yes genius,and this proves your point about Obama’s campaign being mostly “grass roots/small donations” How?

    Oh it doesn’t at all,pretty much like the rest of your posting.Mindless,idiotic talking points.

    It is the “radical right” that is constantly cutting taxes idiot,you liberals are the ones who consider raising taxes “patriotic”.

    Judging from the fact that Obama is going to keep the Bush tax cuts in place,you liberals are the ones who agree with the “radical right”.

    You would be a lot more interesting if you could just back up one thing you post,at least something
    to keep you from appearing like an absolute idiot.

    This liberal goes through this whole thread posting like he/she possess some superior knowledge and introspective and not once backs up the bogus position that:

    Obama’s campaign was a “grass roots effort based on small donations”.

    This may pass for intelligence in the little Berkeley bubble you “hope and change” idiots live
    in,but in the real world,respect and credibility are based on facts and results.
    Two things you dramatically lack in judging from your posts.

    Baxter Greene (8035ae)

  96. Rich people don’t dribble their donations, jack, they just write one big check.

    Time is money, you know.

    Comment by parsnip

    This person is a fool but we knew that. Rich people who plan to violate election laws to elect the savior they are convinced is the messiah will set up a little program to generate thousands of small donations from credit cards issued in false names. The Obama campaign purposely disabled the address checking function of their credit card operation so the donations would not be rejected. In theory, the bank issuing the credit card would receive lots of chargeback orders once the phony names had been identified but that will not happen. Why ? This was a conspiracy between the Obama campaign and the donors, many of whom were not US citizens and many of whom may be middle eastern Muslims. The credit card owner will not object to all those phony name charges because that was part of the plan. The banks will collect their processing fees and everybody is happy.

    Al Gore tried this during the Clinton administration and got caught because he used real people who could be tracked down by a press that was less compliant than the one we have now.

    The Obama presidency was paid for by people whose names we will never know. That worries me but not sock puppet fools.

    Mike K (6c3bc7)

  97. It will be interesting if the US, as the saying goes, jumped the shark on election day in early November. I certainly will be surprised if this country over the next 4 years — and definitely should it end up being, God forbid, 8 years — doesn’t take on some of the characteristics of a dumbed-down, corrupt, flaky Banana Republic, or a cross between a Mexico and a France.

    After all, I can’t help but be affected by, among other examples, commentary from a Japanese publication, described as well respected, that said the US has never before voted into office a president with the questionable, dodgy background of Barack Obama.

    Mark (411533)

  98. …I can’t help but be affected by, among other examples, commentary from a Japanese publication, described as well respected, that said the US has never before voted into office a president with the questionable, dodgy background of Barack Obama.

    Why be surprised? It’s called “Liberal White Guilt”. The MSM is riddled with it like a cancer.
    This cancer ate away at the reasoning and skeptical centers of the Media organs minds. Hmm it has a lot in common with Rabies actually…
    foam at the mouth…
    …wild eyed raging behavours…
    …one could hope..sigh.

    PitchforksnTorches (4dd8c4)

  99. #97, 98

    That was an interesting article from WaPo about Japan. Here’s the money quote from Sentaku, described as a monthly magazine with a reputation for objectivity and solid analysis. Apparently Japan feels threatened about auto production, trade, big labor, Obama’s lack of knowledge re Japan.

    Writing in anticipation of an Obama victory, the magazine raised most of the same charges the Republicans had leveled against the Democratic candidate, including Obama’s associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former Weather Underground leader William Ayers and “communist and socialist professors.” It called him “the most dubious character in history to occupy the White House.” Criticizing Obama’s foreign policy statements as “abstract” and “strings of empty words such as ‘consultation’ and ‘cooperation,’ “the article concluded that under Obama, the United States would lose its position of global leadership and drag the world into “enormous chaos.”

    Which is what makes the loves and jharps just salivate. The journo goes on to write:

    Then there’s the issue of anti-Americanism. On a recent trip to Japan, I was stunned by the critical views of U.S. policies that I heard in conversations with friends and on television talk shows. On any given day, there are dozens of commentators on Japanese TV talking about all sorts of American ills. One media industry insider told me that people who are perceived as pro-American just don’t get invited on the air these days.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111302975.html?nav=slate&sid=ST2008111403219&s_pos=

    Vermont Neighbor (5ea336)

  100. Al Gore tried this during the Clinton administration and got caught because he used real people who could be tracked down by a press that was less compliant than the one we have now.

    The Obama presidency was paid for by people whose names we will never know.

    Hey, it’s not like there’s any controlling legal authority, ya know?

    Rob Crawford (b5d1c2)

  101. Obama Infatuation Syndrome (OIS) causes the MSM to focus only on positive statements. Japans’ uneasiness will never,ever be discussed by Chrissy Matthews et al.

    PitchforksnTorches (4dd8c4)

  102. The question now arises: The so-called small donors who contributed repeatedly up to the $4,600 legal limit in small increments of $200 or less, did they contribute their own money or was the money channeled through them by the super rich with a stake in the outcome of the election? It’s hard to believe that the average American, struggling to stay financially afloat in this hard times, could afford to make campaign contributions of any size. Carlos the Carpenter

    Carlos Navarro (d46d60)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4886 secs.