Hannibal Lecter Would Choke On A Piece Of My Mind

In Which Ax Channels The Ghost Of Joe McCarthy*

*At least, what liberals say Joe McCarthy did.  Which he didn’t, but facts never seem to get in their way.

Now then.  It’s time for a Flaming Skull of Raeg.

This is what you get when you make my head explode.  And what, you might ask, has me so hot ‘n bothered?  Oh nothing.

Just the top Democrat message guy going on TV and popping off about how the Chamber of Commerce is a threat to democracy. Why?  Because it told the public that it took some money from foreign companies.

Well let me think for just about half a second on this one.

K, I’m done.  That was fast, wasn’t it?  Here’s what I came up with.

  1. This is a global economy, smart guy.  So if a business-oriented interest group takes money from foreign companies, it’s possibly because those foreign companies have parts of their business in America.  With, y’know, people working at them.  You know, at JOBS AND STUFF.  BECAUSE BUSINESSES MAKE JOBS.
  2. The Chamber came out and TOLD people.  In the biz, that’s called disclosure. So if people want to know, for voting purposes, if the Chamber got money from foreign interests.  Which it did.  And it said so publicly.  So what’s the big deal, yo?
  3. Politics of fear.  I think that’s all I need to say about that.
  4. No, that’s not all I need to say.  I have to show you the DNC ad linking Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, and the Chamber of Commerce to a mugger in a parking garage.  Really.

The other thing is, I get this feeling that I’ve seen this sort of shady, back-door campaign contributions somewhere before, but I just can’t place it.

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

Contributions Reviewed After Deposits
By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama‘s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

Oh.  That’s where.

Back to Axelrod, though, because this really is a gold mine of stupid.  Here’s what the Times quoted Ax as saying:

David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, was asked Sunday by Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” on CBS if he had any evidence that the chamber was using secret foreign funds to influence the election.

“Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?”

Enter the Flaming Skull.  You have got to be [blogger reminds himself to be family friendly] kidding me.

Let’s apply that to a few other scenarios.

David Axelrod is a child molester.  Do you have any evidence that he’s not, Bob?

David Plouffe is a smily-faced axe murderer.  Do you have any evidence that he’s not, Bob?

Nancy Pelosi is a witch, and should be burned at the stake.  Do you have any evidence…actually, that one might be true.

Just kidding.  But do you have any evidence that she’s not, Bob?

The point is, I could say that Rahm Emanuel spends his spare time flaying kittens with a rusty piece of barbed wire; and if the burden of evidence is on him, he’s solidly up a creek.  I expect that not even Rahmbo would do such a horrible thing, but nobody can prove otherwise.

On a lighter note, would you like to know the limit of the NY Times’ ability to suspend disbelief?  From the same NY Times article, further up the page:

The Democrats have offered no evidence that the chamber is using foreign money to influence the elections. The chamber has overseas affiliates that pay dues to the main organization but says it has a process to segregate those funds from any used for electioneering.

We just found rock bottom.  Not even the Times is willing to omit the truth on this one.

Exit question:  Even if all of this were substantive, substantiated, and worthy of the time and energy the White House is putting into it…is it really the best idea to attack the biggest business interest group in the nation, three weeks before an election whose main electoral factor will be a faltering economy?

Light up the comments.


2 responses

    • stixxxnstones

      Good materials, but I’m not so much interested in their friends’ underhanded dealings — not so much as I am interested in the Obama campaign doing exactly what they are now accusing the Chamber of Commerce of doing.

      It’s not that the two situations resemble each other in one or two ways. They’re EXACTLY the same. That’s why I went the way I did.

      That said, Gary Locke and Bill Clinton are two good examples of how widespread a practice it is.

      October 11, 2010 at 11:44 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s