Just don't call them unpatriotic, that would be too far....

[Coito ergo sum]

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24916.html

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Now, let someone claim that the Administration implied they were unpatriotic...that would be beyond the pale....

[Svartalf]

First questions...
a) Is this even true? Are the donors listed (I guess they are, or they couldn't then turn their donations to influence), is that list made public to the other side? Does Obama really use that list for intimidation purposes?
b) Is this strassel person reliable?
c) Nixon did it, is he the only one to have done it? (president I mean, EJ hoover did it too)... heck, I'd not be surprised if bush senior hadn't kept the list for reagan, before he was president himself... so what's special with BHO using old and proven tactics, if ones that, to my knowledge, are more associated with the other party... then again, if Sinatra used his mob relations to further his goal, there's a large likelihood that Kennedy the Elder's served a similar purpose for John F, bob, and the rest of the clan... diery politics, certes, bbut it's the way you get business done.

[Coito ergo sum]

First questions...
a) Is this even true? Are the donors listed (I guess they are, or they couldn't then turn their donations to influence), is that list made public to the other side? Does Obama really use that list for intimidation purposes?

Yes to the first part, that all such donations are public. I think they can be looked up at www.fec.gov - the federal election commission website. And, the article makes the claim that specific persons have been intimidated. There is, of course, the possibility that it is all bollocks, or exaggerated, etc., which should come to light through a discussion of the issue and the tug of war that ensues on threads.

b) Is this strassel person reliable?

I don't think his reliability matters, when his assertions can be verified. He mentions specific persons and specific allegations about what was done to those people. If the allegation is bollocks, I am sure someone will point it out. If there is one thing that is for sure, there is no shortage of people who will post defenses of Obama around here.

c) Nixon did it, is he the only one to have done it? (president I mean, EJ hoover did it too)... heck, I'd not be surprised if bush senior hadn't kept the list for reagan, before he was president himself... so what's special with BHO using old and proven tactics, if ones that, to my knowledge, are more associated with the other party... then again, if Sinatra used his mob relations to further his goal, there's a large likelihood that Kennedy the Elder's served a similar purpose for John F, bob, and the rest of the clan... diery politics, certes, bbut it's the way you get business done.

I think the allegation is that the prior Presidents, Nixon excepted, did not do what B.O. is doing now. Obviously, if it's a common practice, then that is even more disturbing, because the President putting the squeeze on people in retaliation for donating to the wrong campaign is pretty damn bad. I think it can be safely assumed that if GWBush did anything of the kind, his opponents would have mentioned it. Fuck, they were livid over an invented claim that Bush and Cheney called people "unpatriotic," even when they never actually did. Surely, if calling people unpatriotic is something that civil society ought not tolerate, then it better be unacceptable to intimidate campaign donors.

[maiforpeace]

Those of us who were against the Iraq war were dubbed "unpatriotic", and in some cases were even called terrorists.

I don't recall Bush or Cheney ever saying a word to deny such accusations.

[Coito ergo sum]

Those of us who were against the Iraq war were dubbed "unpatriotic", and in some cases were even called terrorists.

Only by your own inference of words other than "unpatriotic" and "terrorist." Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor anyone in the Administration said that. I'm of course open to be persuaded otherwise, with a citation to a quote. However, in 9 years, nobody has presented that quote.

Now, I note you phrased your post in the passive voice, so the question becomes "who" do you claim "dubbed" you unpatriotic and a terrorist. If it was some random person around town or on the interwebz, then you'll have to excuse me if I don't bother taking that seriously. Many such persons have "dubbed" me many things that I felt were quite unjustified.

I don't recall Bush or Cheney ever saying a word to deny such accusations.

I don't think denying a bullshit allegation ever helps anyone.

I don't recall anyone actually substantiating the accusation. Do you? Did they ever call anyone unpatriotic or a terrorist?

Now, Obama called Bush unpatriotic, due to the increase in the national debt under Bush. That I have proof for. Here you go: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/24/f ... patriotic/

Do you have anything near to that degree of proof for a statement wherein Bush or Cheney, or anyone in the former administration, called anyone who opposed the Iraq War unpatriotic or a terrorist...

...typically, folks making that claim are either referring to some general feeling they have, or are inferring it from some other words used. If it's the latter, I would ask that you post a link.

[Svartalf]

Seriously CES, even without sinking to the level of cronyism seen during the JWB period, do you really think that peaple/parties arriving in powers haven't favored those who supported them and hung those who supported their opponents to dry?
Should romney win the current power play, won't democratic donors, or those who supported ron paul or santorum fail to feel the love?

[Coito ergo sum]

Seriously CES, even without sinking to the level of cronyism seen during the JWB period, do you really think that peaple/parties arriving in powers haven't favored those who supported them and hung those who supported their opponents to dry?

That is different than what is being described in the article.

Should romney win the current power play, won't democratic donors, or those who supported ron paul or santorum fail to feel the love?

In the way described in the article? I would be willing to bet that if Democratic donors were feeling that love in 2001 through 2008, we would have heard about it. That's my point for raising the incredibly minor and overblown, and invented, piss and moan by Democrats that some big-bad Republicans called them "unpatriotic." For some reason, for years, Democrats were moaning... "don't call me unpatriotic...don't call me unpatriotic... not fair!" --- so, if while they are crying like five year olds over something like that (which was, incidentally, never actually said), do you think they would ignore the kind of conduct referred to in the article? Really?

[Svartalf]

Well, actually, I'm waiting for confirmation of that article next year if BHO wins the elections.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, actually, I'm waiting for confirmation of that article next year if BHO wins the elections.

If the latest downturn in the employment and economic growth numbers are any indication, it'll be a bad summer for B.O.

[Svartalf]

If the climate feels like it has these last years, there will be so much BO that deo makers will have to step production up.

[Ian]

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Your guess would be wrong. But y'know what's about a million times more wrong? The Citizens United ruling. Just sayin'.

[Robert_S]

Seriously CES, even without sinking to the level of cronyism seen during the JWB period, do you really think that peaple/parties arriving in powers haven't favored those who supported them and hung those who supported their opponents to dry?

That is different than what is being described in the article.

Should romney win the current power play, won't democratic donors, or those who supported ron paul or santorum fail to feel the love?

In the way described in the article? I would be willing to bet that if Democratic donors were feeling that love in 2001 through 2008, we would have heard about it. That's my point for raising the incredibly minor and overblown, and invented, piss and moan by Democrats that some big-bad Republicans called them "unpatriotic." For some reason, for years, Democrats were moaning... "don't call me unpatriotic...don't call me unpatriotic... not fair!" --- so, if while they are crying like five year olds over something like that (which was, incidentally, never actually said), do you think they would ignore the kind of conduct referred to in the article? Really?

CES, I've a lot of respect for you, but a lot of people kinda close to your political position are ignorant fucking goobers. The kind of goobers that left dead animals on the doorsteps of people with anti-war signs in their yards. the kind of goobers that would try to wreck the careers of the Dixie Chicks (not my favorites, but still fairly decent) the kind of goobers that drove up on the sidewalk where the anti-war protesters were legally holding signs, the kind of goober cops that merely gave the guy a verbal warning. The kind of goobers who voted for Santorum.

Maybe it was going too far on Obama's part given his office. I didn't get much in the way of fact from your link before I got tired of the opinion. But the conservative camp is still owed some comeuppance.

[Warren Dew]

First questions...
a) Is this even true? Are the donors listed (I guess they are, or they couldn't then turn their donations to influence), is that list made public to the other side? Does Obama really use that list for intimidation purposes?
b) Is this strassel person reliable?
c) Nixon did it, is he the only one to have done it? (president I mean, EJ hoover did it too)... heck, I'd not be surprised if bush senior hadn't kept the list for reagan, before he was president himself... so what's special with BHO using old and proven tactics, if ones that, to my knowledge, are more associated with the other party... then again, if Sinatra used his mob relations to further his goal, there's a large likelihood that Kennedy the Elder's served a similar purpose for John F, bob, and the rest of the clan... diery politics, certes, bbut it's the way you get business done.

Well, the site is easily found:

http://www.keepinggophonest.com/behind- ... eys-donors

don't think his reliability matters, when his assertions can be verified.

Strassel is a woman. I consider her the most reliable of the columnists these days. Irrespective of that, the information in her article made it extremely easy to find the above link verifying her factual claims, so as you say we didn't have to rely on her personal reputation.

By the way, Svartalf, Kennedy might have benefited from mob connections, but that was a long time ago. It would be nice if we had moved past that, and until recently, it seemed that we had.

[Warren Dew]

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24916.html

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Hey, how else are you going to build a Chicago style political machine? I mean, the fact that people can vote doesn't mean they're allowed to vote against you, you know.

[FBM]

Let me guess -- Obama supporters see nothing wrong with this.

Your guess would be wrong. But y'know what's about a million times more wrong? The Citizens United ruling. Just sayin'.

This?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_U ... Commission