High Plains Grifters
Adam Green is desperate for your money. So desperate that he is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get it.
You see, a couple weeks ago, Adam Green (PCCC’s Treasurer and Grifter-in-Chief) registered the domain name “ColberSuperPAC” in an attempt to bleed donations and membership from Colbert’s Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow (which can be found at [www.ColbertSuperPac.com]):
Progressive Change Campaign Committee Treasurer Adam Green purchased the URL ColberSuperPAC.com, omitting the t in Stephen Colbert’s name, and then redirected that URL to his own PAC web site in an apparent attempt to steal critical membership and donations away from Colbert’s PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Colbert announced Friday night on his show, The Colbert Report, more than 100,000 previous ABTT members need to sign up a second time because the organization is now a super-PAC.
According to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Adam Green registered colbersuperpac.com at Godaddy.com, Inc. on July 1, 2011 for one year using the same address he used to register PCCC with the Federal Election Commission. Soon afterward, the URL began redirecting unwitting ABTT supporters to Green’s PCCC PAC website, soliciting memberships and donations intended for ABTT via a splash page similar to the graphic included here. If you attempted to become a member of ABTT via ColbertSuperPAC.com and recall having entered via a porthole resembling the one pictured with this story, you may have to try again.
It’s important to note that Green built a special splash page specifically for ColberSuperPAC.com redirects even though the page more resembles his own PAC’s web site than Colbert’s ColbertSuperPAC.com web site because Green having done so raises more questions about his actions.
Some past PCCC members believe the PAC has a history of questionable actions. As DailyKos.com blogger Willynel points out, “They stated in one email that they had received over 60,000 small donations over [an] issue. 60,000 over [a one week period] and change? That’s really not that much.” Leaving Willynel wondering, “Who funds PCCC?”
A search through the Federal Election Commission’s records revealed that PCCC reported total 2010 receipts as $2,559,647.00. Additionally PCCC reported that in 2010 $2,466,638.00 of their receipts came from individuals, with virtually all those contributions being small. This is in fact where PCCC appears to get the lion’s share of its funds.
Immediately after delivering a brief speech about his newly formed Super-PAC, Colbert told his supporters to keep their contributions small, “preferably under $50.00 so that I don’t have to report them.” If Green has been able to redirect these small donations intended for ABTT to PCCC instead, Green would not have to report either the donations or the members who provided those donations to the Federal Election Commission.
Among PCCC’s receipts for last year, Green reported receiving only $5,649.00 from other committees, with one of those contributions being a $450.00 in-kind contribution from Democracy for America. SoldOutsandSellOuts.net will not be investigating other committees’ operating practices unless those practices force the issue.
Members of the original ABTT and Colbert Nation fans who inadvertently mistyped the ColbertSuperPAC.com URL without the t in Colbert and ended up accidentally joining or sponsoring PCCC have a recourse. First, if you wish to cancel your membership, it should be as easy as it was to become a member, and the instructions to do so should be at the bottom of the emails you should be receiving from PCCC as a member. Then, if you wish to request a donation refund, you may return to the PCCC web site and use their return policy to ask for a refund of your donations. You may do this even if you made a legitimate donation if you feel you now have just cause based on Green’s recent behavior. That’s your choice.
If, however, you were redirected to the PCCC website when you were honestly trying to donate to ABTT via ColbertSuperPAC.com, you should be able to simply call the telephone number on the back of the credit or debit card that you used, explain the truth about what happened to them and ask them to arrange a refund to your card so that you can donate the money to Stephen Colbert’s ColbertSuperPAC.com as you originally intended.
If anyone still needs the name for Stephen Colbert’s organization, it’s Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Colbert’s associated political action committee website where you can go to become a member and to donate, in his own words, “preferably $50.00 or less so that I don’t have to report it” is http://www.ColbertSuperPAC.com/.
Sidenote: When I worked as an attorney in New York in 1999, I worked on matters related to cybersquatting and typosquatting. Before Congress passed the Anti-Cybersquatting Piracy Act and before Al Gore made the Internet so popular that every corporation decided to get in on the website game, cybersquatters would buy trademarked domain names and then “offer” to sell them to the trademark holder for a premium.
Typosquatting is a variation of cybersquatting, and is generally the purview of porn and penis enlargement spammers. Typosquatters will register a domain name that is very similar to a trademarked name in an attempt to make money off the mistakes of Internet Users. (For example, I remember that in 1999, www.dosney.com would resolve to a porn site. Sexxxy.)
Cybersquatting is illegal. Typosquatting can be illegal. While Green’s activities likely are not actionable under the Lanham Act (because I can’t imagine that there’s a substantial likelihood that an internet user would be confused and think that the PCCC is affiliated with Colbert’s PAC, and because there is no evidence that Green has offered or intends to offer to sell the faux site to Colbert for a fee), it certainly is shady– it is an attempt to make money off of innocent mistakes.
And, given PCCC co-founder Aaron Swartz’s recent indictment for wire and computer fraud, coupled with PCCC’s FEC troubles and Green’s outrage-based and dishonest fundraising tactics (for more posts on the subject, see The Reid Report here and here, and The People’s View posts on the subject) it seems to me that if you’ve donated money to these charlatans, you might want to consider asking for a refund.
PCCC purports to be using donations to elect bold progressives, yet in 2010 the PCCC spent $2 million while donating a mere $35,000 to federal and state candidate election efforts — that’s less than 2 percent. Still, somehow, Adam Green took in a tidy $78,000 salary. Funny, that.
These PCCC shenanigans certainly raise questions about the $40,000 which PCCC has raised to “Draft” Elizabeth Warren. One wonders, what will happen to all the funds raised in Elizabeth Warren’s name should she decide not to run? Hmm?
Green may have messed with the wrong guy: The Reddit crowd is verrah pro-Colbert. Then again, Aaron Swartz (PCCC co-founder along with Green) co-founded (or at least was heavily involved in the start up of) Reddit, so maybe it’s all a wash.
Either way, grifters gonna grift.
UPDATE: Needs more Beastie Boys (h/t @snkscoyote):
[image via Jay Carax]
Goody! We need a 400 post thread with a bunch of firebagger trolls piling on to you, and trying to refute this….
Now this is an actual example of grifting. (link broken, FYI).
hey abl, your cite to colbert’s actual pac appears solely as tsuperpac.com it should be colbertsuperpac.com, right?
That’s just sad. I wonder if Colbert knows about this.
@pragmatism: yes. thanks!
I don’t have the time or inclination to read through an ABL jihad tract, but I’m assuming this organization uttered a negative word about Dear Leader at some point?
a harbinger of comments to come.
Reading Is Fundamental. Plus it prevents you from making a fool of yourself.
Well, we just had mistermix defending the firebagger gasbag Cenk Uygur, now it’s ABL’s turn as an O-bot. Only fair.
grifers gonna grift
liars gonna lie
to start a war with pie
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
If Colbert wants to, he can sue to take this name away. It wouldn’t be hard to prove that it is being used to deceive people into giving to the wrong place.
Not really. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.
What Joel said. And it’s a good reminder for me to donate to Colbert’s SuperPAC.
What a bitch move.
Pretty serious assertion you make there.
I would recommend a change in the copy to reporting the assertions made in your link rather than making the blanker assertion of your first graf.
This certainly looks shady, and “grifting” is used accurately here. But it has no connection or resemblance to what Aaron Swartz did, so trying to tie that in just seems desperate, obsessive, and unnecessary, and undermines the post.
@ Mary Jane : I like “firebagger gasbag.” It smells like
ETA: Um, his, I mean.
WELL MAYBE IF OBAMA HAD SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE THIS WOULDNT HAVE FUCKING HAPPENED
Hey, one must do what one must do to FIGHT THE POWAH!
Now that Obama IS the power, and the establishment power is one monolith stretching from center/left to far right (stephen colbert plays host to people like Condi Rice) I like seeing real progressives play a little dirty.
I don’t have the time or inclination to read through an ABL jihad tract, but I’m assuming this organization uttered a negative word about Dear Leader at some point?
Yes, that’s it exactly. It’s all you have to know. Remember to donate to Adam Green! Especially to his legal fund!
Also, too: Doesn’t Colbert’s PAC make him a GRIFTER!!!!!?
A Greenwald bootlicker graces us with his presence here, I see.
Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo Stick … really???
You are a simpleton and an asshole, rolled up into one neat little brown-eyed package!
That’s a low-down dirty trick. I finally unsubscribed from Green’s “Bold Progressives” spam-o-lot list a couple of weeks back after one too many “OMFG OBAMA OUTRAGE 11ELEVENTY11” emails. When I hit the unsubscribe button, I got a pop-up saying, “Sorry to lose you. Can you tell us why you’re unsubscribing?”
My reply was something along the lines of “Y’all can’t hold your fudge while Obama is negotiating with bunch of psychotics, and I’m sick of you clogging up my inbox with misplaced bits of spleen,” or something to that effect. Glad I beat the rush…
The point isn’t to uncover something shady, it’s to attack a progressive group that has occasionally criticized the president from the left.
that’s my middle name.
thanks for your input, though.
the juxtaposition of this thread and kay’s thread, and the respective responses they’ll generate, could not be starker. or more hilarious.
grifters will indeed grift, abl. feel free to read into that however you like.
I don’t understand the bit about PCCC being questionable because they received “only” 60,000 donations in a week.
Can I have the Cliff Notes version of what the fuck the PCCC is? Are they affiliated in any way with Lady Jane Hamsher?
On second thought, strike my comment.
he definitely could. he will likely have his attorneys send a cease and desist letter.
ETA: the statutory penalty ranges from 1K to 100K. Assuming this is Green’s first offense, the penalty would likely be tiny and not worth the attorneys’ fees Colbert would incur in a lawsuit.
Seconded. I hold no brief for Green or PCCC, nor any patience for their techniques.
But Swartz is being prosecuted for something fundametally different and separate from his association with PCCC, and it frankly stinks of overzealousness on the prosecutor’s part. However ill-advised Swartz’s hacking of MIT and JSTOR was, there doesn’t appear to have been any malicious intent nor any intent to profit from it — and it has nothing to do with PCCC.
Bold talk for someone who just admitted that they didn’t read the post.
True, but that’s hardly a defense of PCCC here. We expect agents like PCCC to do good willingly, not to do good when a judge forces them to.
Yeah, that sounds pretty good to me. If that’s a really low number, then I really need to start me a PAC.
Culture of Truth
A baseless ‘Dear Leader’ crack. Those never get old.
well, Colbert does have a show and an acid pen. There are extra judicial resolutions for this which won’t end well for the PCCC.
Link no worky. You fix?
Love you very much ABL, don’t listen to the firebaggers.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
Well of course that’s quite accurate, but to be so precise makes for a much weaker headline.
Look, setting up a redirect to a typo of an unrelated group is pretty sleazy. Even people that you’re sympathetic to can be sleazebags.
Defend what they’re doing if you must; don’t play “they’re shouting down criticism of Dear Leader.” Explain why, if they’re so pure and good, they need to try and fool followers of Colbert into going to their website.
Gin & Tonic
Am I hopelessly uncool for having never heard of Adam Green or the PCCC (which, if you write it backwards is CCCP, which is the Cyrillic abbreviation for the Soviet Union), and for not having the slightest idea what any of this is about?
You don’t really even need to read these things. Name The Enemy in the title, attack The Enemy for something that all political organizations do to some extent, “strengthen” the attack with an immaterial smear, then close the thing out with a YouTube video. It’s formulaic; Pravda-meets-a spastic teenager’s myspace page.
And to me, this is the worst part:
This is the kind of shit these firebagging groups appear to do all the time. Grifting indeed.
You don’t even need to read Corey, since he can’t be bothered to read the post he’s replying to. (But he can, apparently, write a lot of words about why we should listen to him anyhow.)
I’ve seen more sensible youtube comments.
So what now, Colbert’s The Enemy? Tunch wept.
Now that’s sleazy.
So, what’s with the empty input box on Colbert’s SuperPAC site? Based on what he’s said on his show, I’m assuming it’s for email address input, but a little notation to that effect would be nice. Otherwise, it seems like it’s looking for a response: “Join Us:” “Okay!” [SUBMIT]. Poor design.
What is the difference between this guy and PCCC and James O’Keefe in terms of ethics?
Says someone who admits he didn’t even bother to read the post.
No wonder the left can’t get its shit together — we’ve got “progressive leaders” for lack of a better term) trying to squat on websites to get a bit more traffic and hacking into networks (allegedly), and half the responses to that revelation are “YOU’REJUSTANOBOT!!” To which the common response is, “ANDYOU’REAFIREBAGGER!!”
All the while, people with common cause (say, on gay marriage) blast each other over semantics and wording (see several Cole posts earlier this week).
This isn’t to say we should all follow lockstep like the right.
It is to say that maybe we should be better at picking our battles and circular firing squad topics.
Just an idea …
Uncle Clarence Thomas
You are correct, and I note that the abominABLe snowman refused to answer your question, as any perp would refuse. Thread over.
@ G&T : If you’ve ever seen web ads that say things like “Stand with Elizabeth Warren,” that’s PCCC. NewsMax does it for the right (“Bachmann for President? Vote Now!”) and PCCC does it for the left. It’s a ruse to harvest emails, with a thin veneer of actual politics.
Um – how do you know that’s what this post is if you didn’t read it?
You seem to have an assumption that if ABL says something then it is evil/wrongheaded/stupid/whatever. Which is similar to the assumption that the House Republicans have with regards to everything Obama says.
this isn’t to say that I think ABL is always right – but unless she’s actually Bill Kristol trolling us all mightily then she’s not always wrong either.
@ 51 – FlipYrWhig
Please explain this:
OT, but just got this email from the Washington Post:
No actual details yet, of course.
I just want to echo KCinDC and JGabriel. The indictment of Aaron Swartz is actually outrageous, whatever his politics are. There’s a good analysis of how flimsy the charges are at TechDirt for those interested: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110720/00581915173/lack-legal-moral-basis-aaron-swartz-indictment-is-quite-troubling.shtml
Um, you do realize that anyone can register a domain using false contact information, get hosting for it, and make the hosting page redirect to any page she wants, right?
Sourcing, sourcing, sourcing, what is it?
Yes you do, kiddo. Because you were flat-out wrong with your first sniveling whine, are still wrong with your most recent, and are showing yourself to be a cretinous fool in the most entertaining way. All because you’re too lazy (or perhaps too stupid) to read. Please, do continue with your nifty shenanigans; you’re making ABL’s case for her almost better than she could.
Administrative Salaries & Benefits $503,788
Miscellaneous Administrative $84,030
Supplies, Equipment & Furniture $21,957
Campaign Expenses Political Consultants $145,502
Campaign Events $4,783
Contributions Candidates (Fed & Non-federal) $32,763
Miscellaneous Contributions $1,440
Committees (Fed & Non-Federal) $450
Parties (Fed & Non-federal) $335
Contrib Refunds $250
Fundraising Miscellaneous Fundraising $86,739
Fundr Direct Mail/Telemarketing $20,099
Fundraising Events $260
Media Miscellaneous Media $358,853
Internet Media $353,496
Print Media $68,444
Broadcast Media $64,575
Media Consultants $10,329
Other Charitable Donations $3,667
Transfers Federal Transfer $21,796
Uncoded not yet coded $26,654
Now, we can also make a big stink about the donations to Federal candidates….but that’s not uncommon. In interests of fairness given how badly ABL screwed the pooch LAST post, I offer EMILY’s List, who, for one example, has raised $6M but only donated $4k to Federal candidates this year.
Han's Big Snark Solo
OT – Kevin Drum has proven, using techniques pioneered by the Heritage Foundation, that the slow down in private sector job creation is entirely the fault of the Teabaggers.
@stuck working: Good article. Thanks for the link. There’s some interesting stuff in the comments there too.
@58 – NobodySpecial
Yikes. I’m obviously in the wrong business.
@taylormattd: Ain’t we all.
I know next to nothing about PCCC, but those numbers by themselves don’t really say much. Isn’t one of the main tactics used by PACs to do media buys on behalf of candidates, often making the attacks against their opponents that the candidate herself can not make? This means spending the money, not donating it to a candidate.
I checked out ABL’s links on this because I was on the verge of supporting some of the PCCC’s projects, which I like very much. They definitely linked themselves to the incorrectly spelled ColberSuperPac.com. The link, however, simply takes you to their information page. They don’t allow you to simply click a link and donate to anything named ColberSuperPac. Its very clear that you are reading and donating to the PCCC site itself. The main problem I see with what they are doing is that they are sort of phishing or trolling for hits from people who they think will probably like what they do, as an organization. I think its deceptive, annoying, tedious, time wasting and discourteous to Colbert. I’ve actually met both Stefanie and Adam on a recent fundraising tour in my area. I wrote to them directly, told them how disgusted I was with their action, and took my name off their list. This was a very serious, dishonest, form of lamprey like fundraising. I doubt very much that they raised any money doing it–its clear that you are not on Colbert’s site–but they imply by indirection and misdirection that they are somehow sponsored by Colbert and that’s just as bad.
No idea whether or not this kind of purported behavior by PCCC is illegal, but if it’s true, it’s sleazy and stupid on their part at the very least.
To be honest, though, ABL’s earlier post about PCCC undermines the case she puts forward here. One inaccurate accusation of grifting makes it harder to accept the same charge later, even when she makes a much better case for it the second time.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
But is it made clear that PCCC has absolutely no relationship with Colbert’s PAC?
I tell you, some of the people who comment on this blog are out of their fucking minds. If they fail to see Green’s actions as completely scumbag, low-life grifting, I have to wonder what type of people they are.
And attacks on ABL personally, when admitting that they haven’t even read the fucking thing…I think the moderator should just delete that shit. Call it censorship, whatever, it’s a private blog and personal attacks by people who don’t even take the time to read are fucking paid trolls and this website is helping them get their messages out.
Engage the issue, defend Adam Green for his scummy tactics, admit that you are just as scummy…but leave your bullshit personal attacks for your wife, husband or kids.
@58 – NobodySpecial
(1) the 4K you have for EMILY’s list is flat wrong. You are looking at the 2012 cycle spending so far. The 2010 EMILY’s list spending was over $212K to House candidates and over $25K to Senate candidates. The stuff for Adam Green’s PAC is for 2010.
(2) Regarding the 2012 EMILY’s list expenditure. It shows only 4K to one candidate (Kathy Hochul) directly, but there are something like 94K in expenditures to what may be some committee (?) related to that same candidate – “Kathy Hochul Contributions”. So the 4K number is wrong.
@ taylormattd : Did you get the impression I was defending PCCC? I wasn’t. I think they’re shady, and that the purpose of their “organization” is to perpetuate their organization: please give us money so we can continue doing what we’re doing, i.e., asking people to please give us money.
But in the process, you are committing ABL’s original offense in reverse. In that case, she used her dislike of the involved parties as a surrogate for her own knowledge and judgment of an issue, which, I agree, was stupid, counterproductive, and extremely damaging to her credibility. But in having a harder time accepting the information you can plainly see before you just because it was put there by ABL, you are doing the exact same thing and damaging your own credibility.
Pretty sleazy, indeed. And aren’t dirty tricks supposed to be deployed on your opposition, not your allies?
I want to also point out the Steven Colbert pronounces his last name exactly how Green set up the URL. It isn’t just people mis-keying, it is a deliberate attempt to get people to see their page, by playing on their ignorance. Lowlife scumbags.
Also, LOL at the “scumbag” accusations over squatting on a domain.
We used to reserve words like “scumbag” for people who did stuff like cut the safety net in the middle of a recession…oh, wait.
Their tagline is “elect bold progressives.” Not sure how outrage attack ads against Democrats based on lies helps that goal. Not sure how circulating petitions helps that goal.
But, I’m just an idiot who can’t understand the dictionary definition of the term: “grift” –
Definition of GRIFT
: to obtain (money) illicitly (as in a confidence game)
: to acquire money or property illicitly
— and who uses irreverent phrases like grifters gonna grift™, so, evidently, everything i’ve ever written is false.
somebody should primary me.
@66 Temporarily Max McGee,
No, I agree, it is not made clear to you how you ended up on the PCCC site at all! I found that maybe the most shocking thing. I would have expected, at the very least, to be directed to a page saying “Hi people who love Stephen Colbert! We do too! Here’s what we are working on. If you like that, could you consider also donating to us?
I would have expected some kind of acknowledgement of the link confusion itself. I mean, if I’d been trying to get to Colbert’s actual site and found myself at the PCCC site accidentally I would generally have retyped my request or googled around to figure out why I’d ended up at a site which makes literally no mention of Colbert. That’s why I see it as kind of a phishing expedition instead of a clear case of fraud and outright lying. Its a bit more like a scam in which a pollster asks you a bunch of questions about things you like before offering you a similar object in substitution. Or the Amazon “reader recommendations” which purport to tell you what other people also read but which are actually purchased by the book sellers.
Its definitely wrong and extremely skanky. Especially because the correct way to do it is to approach Colbert directly and ask if you can advertise or link to his site because of the similarity of your target market.
Sorry – completely unconvincing, and in fact, this could be actionable as libel unless ABL is in possession of some real facts.
-$78,000 salary for the leader of an organization with a $2.5M budget: I have signed off on that much for an ED of a nonprofit with a $1.5M budget. How much does a lobbyist make?
-$2M in donations, only $35k in contributions: No evidence whatsoever of abuse. Advocacy organizations can make political contributions, or they can make advocacy ads and buy media time and put them on, like MoveOn. About 50% of PCCC spend is media, so looks like the latter. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00458000
-The Reid Report links – useless and misleading. Adam Greene appears to be following Obama’s request that we “make him” do the right thing, just like the left in the 1930s make FDR do the right thing. Just because Reid doesn’t believe Obama means it when Obama uses the English language to say that he wants to cut entitlements, does not mean that Adam Greene is a lying SOS when he quotes Obama’s exact words!
I don’t like the typosquatting, but it is not clearly illegal.
So, I might not like the guy, either, but I wouldn’t use this valuable blogspace to misinform and slander, not to mention shoot someone on our team.
ABL, come up with something better.
Yes. Which seems to be the reason they spent something like $800K on media expenditures, according to that Open Secrets breakdown.
Not that needing or having any kind of understanding of anything is a prerequisite for making explosive charges on the Intertubes! But you know, suckers have to suck.
@slag: I disagree. If Andrew Breitbart had posted this would you immediately accept it as true or would his past reporting influence the way you viewed the facts presented?
@ABL: When you use the word grifter to describe Aaron Swartz’s actions when all accounts indicate that he is someone who believes in having information freely available for all, then yes you will be criticized for misuse. The fact that you got it right in this case does not change that.
taylormattd: Apparently it IS rocket science to read the disclosure statements….
#77 – dollared: prepare yourself for near-insane abuse.
My point, if I didn’t convey it well enough, was that I almost didn’t read the post at all, solely because I found her earlier post about PCCC to be spurious and ridiculously petty. Accusations of grifting are best kept in reserve until one actually has instances of grifting about which to write.
that is clearly false.
perhaps it is you who should come up with something better, dear.
@Sleeper: I think I read a story about that once. Something about a boy crying wolf, IIRC.
@ABL: Is a PAC considered to profit when they raise money via a website? Isn’t profiting a key consideration in whether cybersquatting (including typosquatting is illegal)?
I don’t defend the typosquatting (great word) but I actually think what Green is doing is (if they are actually doing it) incredibly important and incredibily cool. I get that ABL thinks everything is evidence of disloyalty to Obama but when I met with Green and Taylor to talk about what their goals were their goals are completely not geared to attacking Obama. They are proposing to create advertising campaigns in specific congressional races that target the Republican opposition and the Republican *positions* in advance of the race. Instead of spending their money, necessarily, on just backing the democratic candidate they want to run issue advocacy ads in advance that change the discussion about the issues in the campaign before the political campaign season dumps so much information on the voter that they just tune it all out. That’s a fucking great idea.
In addition, they have worked to try to leverage new and sprightly data and advertising people to craft ads for the Wisconsin people. And they are running their own polls and statistical evaluations of the effectiveness of their media buys.
If they are doing what they say they are doing they are a great organization. If they aren’t–they are lying scum. But what they say they are trying to do and the way they say they are trying to do it? That’s actually really shrewd.
I sometimes pop into these threads to mock, but I want to ask, seriously, both sides of this argument: is this really important? I mean, the entire economy is strapped to a bomb with a countdown timer set to go off in just shy of two weeks from now, and this hack-fight is worth talking about?
Do you mean to say that there are grifters on the Democratic side? I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
@MattR: His past reporting would influence whether or not I paid attention to him in the first place. But after we’ve gotten past that part, it becomes a matter of what information is presented, how it’s presented, and whether or not it’s externally verifiable. If Breitbart were to report something along the lines of…say…Obama admits to “loving” Osama bin Laden, I would probably laugh out loud and wonder in what context Obama actually used the word “loving”. However, if he used actual quotes and externally verifiable links (in this case, we have externally verifiable links), I would take his reporting more seriously.
#77: what evidence, precisely, do you have that Greene is on “the same team”?
Is this the Obama-hater game, where the pure get to heap abuse on the president and anyone who agrees with him, but any criticism of them is outrageous?
OT, but if you wanna get yer class war on, NY Times has another sycophantic chapter in Lifestyles of the Overcompensated and Extremely Spoiled — 4-6 figure playhouses for kidz:
Ah, the beautiful sight of job-creators busy job-creating! It warms the very cockles of my heart, to think of all the people put to work building 6 figure playhouses & treehouses for the job-creators!
What? No, how could you possibly think they have too much money? Any suggestion that $250k playhouses are unseemly while half the country makes less than 50k/year and 20% are un- or under-employed is … why that’s just the kind of thing one of those vile Democrats would say!
OK. I hear you. Same here.
@slag: No matter what facts Breitbart presents, I will never trust that it is a complete and accurate representation. I will always wonder what he is omitting that might provide a fuller context of the story.
(EDIT: From what I remember, that is a common complaint about Glenn Greenwald as well from folks here)
(EDIT2: Just to be clear, I am not compating ABL to Breitbart. Just pointing out why past history in reporting does matter to me when judging current stories)
Culture of Truth
I’ll say it – if the facts alleged regarding the url address are true, it’s “clearly illegal.”
Matt: for the folks here I’d at least read the claims, parse them, and go through to the links.
We’re getting people here who don’t even pretend to have read what is written and still yammer on, apparently motivated simply by hatred of a front-pager here.
Same team? Bullshit.
@JGabriel: On the plus side, the really rich guy now has a quarter mil less and the workers who built the monstrosity got a few weeks of work.
Really? Always? What about in this case, where you can type in colbersuperpac.com and see for yourself whether or not they did what they are accused of doing?
That said, I’m not going to lie. I generally agree with your statement. And it applies in all directions.
@ Marc, I read the links. Show me how Greene is not on the same team. I oppose Social Security cuts. Do you support them?
The ad I got under this post, and above the comment thread, was a “DRAFT ELIZABETH WARREN FOR SENATE!” banner… from PCCC.
Tone In DC
ABL, I don’t know how you deal with some of these people.
The Johnny-come-lately trolls are bad enough. The regular B-J crowd is no better.
I ain’t a lawyer, but I figure S. Colbert has a few attorneys he can retain. They’ll deal with this out pretty quick if they think it’s worth the effort.
#89 Marc: Thanks for validating my prediction with such speed.
#86 fasteddie9318: Comrade: clearly you don’t understand the importance of exposing and purging the splitters and wreckers. Even if it means tactically uniting with the ultra-right on their platform of “deficit reduction” and defending “entitlement cuts.” Adam Green is, at this critical juncture, the greatest danger to our movement.
Stephen Colbert asks for donations. Ergo he is a grifter. Discuss.
I see from following a link at the post quoted in this one that The King of all Emo Crackpots thinks the PCCC is the work of David Axelrod. Now that’s funny.
That might be what they told you, but that reality is no longer operative. It’s all about hammering Democrats now. Hamsher actually opposes Warren running for Senate because it means she will “only” oppose Republicans.
@Tone In DC:
Speaking of Johnny-come-lately, how ya’ doing? If you’d been here for more than ten minutes then you would know that there’s never been a front pager, including John Cole, who hasn’t been flamed on occasion.
lambertstrether is his own brand of crazy. It takes a special kind of asshole to make Larry Johnson and Susan Hu look like the adults in the room.
Actually, you fell into the GOP trap here. The playhouses actually *do* create jobs. The trap is that the $250K should have gone back into salaries of lower-paid workers at Raytheon where it would have done more overall economic good, and done more good for Raytheon as well by helping to further stabilize their workforce.
This case is relatively cut and dried, but I guess it is technically possible (though highly doubtful) that PCCC coordinated with Colbert beforehand or that PCCC was hacked and someone else did this. There could also be questions about the exact ethics/legality of this practice. However I was really not making a claim about this particluar case, but more the general one.
See? Job Creation!
Who says America is no longer the land of opportunity? With a little effort and self-discipline, anyone can make an hourly wage (but buy your own benefits, you cheap lazy parasite on capitalist gods) building multi-story treehouses for the spawn of the super-elite!
The only thing wrong here is the PCCC used GoDaddy who is an elephant-killing Grade A1 RWNJ mysogynist ahole.
What do think GoDaddy was going to do with that domain name when Adam bought it? They were going to put advertising on the page and pocket the money! That’s one of their revenue streams. Really ABL this campaign against PCCC is getting a little unhinged.
I like how the article points out several times the irony that these idiots have so much money to flush down the toilet. It’s only ironic if you’re a fucking idiot who doesn’t know that this recession has actually been pretty good for the superrich.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
I’d like to think I’d do the same, but there are going to be people who see “Progressive Change Campaign Committee” and assume that it’s the parent or subsidiary of Colbert’s PAC.
As a wise man once told his son on the tv: Caveat emptor.
Haha! Loving my first email from Colbert’s PAC:
Bobby Thomson @ 103:
Hamsher thinks it’s a bad idea because of what the Senate is. Do I need to remind you of the Dick Durbin quote?
The future’s so bright … I gotta wear shades!
Marc @ 89:
What about the opposite? That anyone who dare criticize the stupidity of this whole debt ceiling thing, and the President’s own role in it, is called a traitor and worse.
@83 ABL, I read the case. If that is still the law of the land, then I think a judge would allow a case to go forward, and a trier of fact could find that the typosquatting in question is illegal. And I agree in all events that it is distasteful, as I said in my earlier post
Now, please respond to my point by point refutation of your other, more irresponsible and clearly politically motivated allegations.
@MattR: Yeah. You’re right. My main original objection to Sleeper’s statement came at this point:
which has since been clarified to make my objection moot. And I didn’t intend to imply that credibility didn’t matter at all, which demonstrates my own lack of clarity.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Ol’ Stinkerwink is over at the GoS defending Green.
“This diary is a fail just as the diary that is beneath it.”
When asked why it’s fail she says:
“It’s outrage about donations being diverted from a comedian.”
So I guess that makes it OK?
“And I’d argue that Colbert’s PAC really doesn’t deserve donations and members given that it’s a media creation, and Colbert has no real intent to use it for progressive change.”
I’m going to take a shot at a guess and say that I bet that ol’ Stinkerwink is a supporter of that other grifter, Calamity Jane. As long as PCCC spent $35,000 on some progressive candidate then it must have been worth the other $2.5 million in expenses to make it happen.
dollared: I oppose the logic that unspecified and rumored changes in SS are “cuts”. I’d like to actually see, you know, what is *actually being proposed* rather than accepting the word of a bunch of people who obviously hate Obama deeply.
We keep seeing these rumors, we keep not seeing any public confirmation that they are real, and the usual suspects spit the usual accusations. It’s utterly stale.
I’d like to see some evidence that the so-called progressives can motivate themselves to attack the outrageous behavior of the Republicans with anything like the passion attached to their attacks on people like me.
Some of these comments look like they are being made by the same people who so intelligently comment on Yahoo sports articles. wth?
Has anyone asked BoldProgressives.org why they registered the website?
I read the linked soldoutsandsellouts article but I couldn’t determine if the PCCC had any comment or No Comment. Or if anyone had even bothered to ask.
Phil: it seems as there is a cadre on the left that really hates Obama. I mean, deeply. Much more so than the Republicans, who you’d think might be a wee bit of a problem for the progressive agenda.
I’m perfectly capable of disagreeing with Obama on things that he’s actually done (for example, on civil liberties, or expanding the war in Afghanistan.) But I react badly to attacks on him for things that he hasn’t done, or ones that rely on the assumption that he has evil intent. They’re incredibly destructive.
And I have even less sympathy for the simplistic sloganeering that I see taking deep root in the online left. I’m a scientist; I question assumptions. A lot of the outrage of the day amounts to taking a rumor, putting the worst spin on it, and attacking the President. And an increasing amount of it here is pure ad hominum. There was a guy on this thread who literally posted a screed while admitting that he hadn’t even read the bloody post. That’s clinical.
That would be committing journalism, which is an unforgivable sin. Also “why…” should be “if… . And if so, why” because, as I noted above, it’s trivial for anyone to register a domain name using false contact info, get hosting for it, and write a page that redirects to any URL she wishes. It’s not even “hacking”, just low-grade social engineering.
@ Marc, I’m a crazy man, but when my president says cuts, and he says he supports Gang of Six processes that lead to cuts, and every pundit in America thinks he is talking about cuts, and then he doesn’t deny that he is talking about cuts but instead says that Democrats should accept the changes even though it is hard, then I think he is talking about cuts, even if those cuts are disguised in a revised CPI calculation. I agree that I have not had a personal conversation with him where he has told me personally that he is in favor of cuts, but he and I are both quite busy.
As for attacking you, I am not attacking you, I am disagreeing with you. You’re more than likely a good guy, and I consider you to be on my team. I just think I have the right to push my president away from folly, and I support many who feel the same way. If you think those are “attacks,” then you may be a bit too quick with teh “fight or flight” thing.
And believe me, I attack Republicans every day. I don’t use the word “treason” with Obama, but I do with Paul Ryan. But I do think I need to make clear where Obama is wrong. Paul Krugman and I are on the same team. Dick Durbin is on my team, although I disagree with him at times. I hope you are on the same team too.
Really, if Colbert wanted to stay in theme he’da done supertcolbertPAC.com
FWIW, I think the administrative costs are really high. 725k in administrative costs exclusive of the 145k they spent on “political consultants and the 198k they spent in “campaign expenses”?
Isn’t the “overhead” norm for well-run non-profit 25%? They’re at almost 50%.
Particularly if they’re mostly buying internet ads. That act wouldn’t seem to need a whole lot of “administration”.
Maybe it’s because they’re new?
dollared: here’s an example. You could “cut” medicare by cutting poorly justified medical spending or overpayments to Pharma. Or you could cut it by making poor people pay more for live-saving care. One is bad, one is good – at least to me. We don’t know which one Obama is talking about; it’s all mind-reading.
And yet we end up with mindless line-drawing: am I “opposed to social security cuts or not?” Hell if I know until you tell me what they are.
I agree. It’s far from certain what actually happened here, or why, and I’m curious if anyone else thought that a couple questions may wreck their hate-on.
This is an indication that your head is nearly totally up your ass. Really. Just a dumb thing to assert in the context of a group such as “Bold Progressives.”
You taint yourself with zero credibility for making a claim that’s obviously rooted in your own deep resentments…or something. Honestly, it’s just unhinged IMHO.
Thanks for joining in. I agree that the overhead is not good. 20% is the lodestone here for physical-based nonprofits in the social service sector here in my provincial capital. I don’t know enough about web-based advocacy orgs. For example, I see the media spend, but where are the production/art costs?
I’m not in love with PCCC. I just see some real exaggeration of the “crimes” because this is about enforcing Obot purity. And I think it’s irresponsible and counterproductive, and I would like to reserve “grifting” as a label for real grifters. There are enough of them, and many of them belong in jail.
But I’m quaint and believe in the rule of law….
kay: that does seem like a very, very low yield even if you include the media component. The admin overhead is very large.
for example calls more than 30% “high”. I’d care about that even if I really wanted my money to go to opposing Obama. 9.5% is the median for all charities.
Bruce: sorry, you cut out all of the relevant parts of my post and went to a straight personal attack on me.
You’re on perma-ignore for me.
cleek, if you’re here can you repost the pie filter? It’s clearly needed now more than ever.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
Hmmm…Three organizations, two that have the word “Progressive” as part of their name, one which has “Colbert” as part of its…But for you to figure this out, you’d be committing thought, which is an unforgivable sin.
Marc – as you are to me. You made an ignorant – frankly quite vile – assertion that seemed like an emphatic point. Sorry if it was “rude” to point out how loony it was. While, of course, you characterize “dollar’s” concerns as “mindless.”
I guess only one side here gets to be sharply critical. At least my barbs aren’t just insane hyperbole that ignore substance of arguments, but take specific comments to task as asinine on their “merits.”
Well, it’s confusing, so I’d need more info. The administrative cost portion is closer to 40 than 50, but they off-loaded “political consultants”, at 145k and I don’t really buy listing that apart from what I’m thinking of as “overhead”.
Then they have 84k in “miscellaneous fundraising” (an administrative cost, I assume) so I’m not crazy about that.
I’m cranky about these things, though. I always imagine a lot of round tables and thought experiments going on, blah, blah, blah, and those make me an unhappy donor :)
Need I remind you of the Hamsher quote. Her exact reasoning was that if Warren runs for Senate she can’t attack Democrats.
And Hamsher is all about attacking Democrats now.
Big fan of the site, and I don’t appreciate the counter-intuitive attacks on Obama either, but there’s a reason they’re not giving money to candidates – the org couldn’t spend money to affect the race once they did. There are more productive ways to help a candidate than by giving him or her money.
The writer you cite takes issue with the fact that PCCC’s money comes from individuals, and not from other PACs… I don’t see why Dems would have a problem with that.
I agree with you: offering up SS and Medicare to negotiation with the Republicans is a huge mistake. Those programs need some changes to be sure, submitting the nature of those changes to negotiation with the party that wishes to disestablish both is not a winning proposition.
kay: yes, that’s why I’ve really slashed what I give to advocacy groups in recent years. People like the local Planned Parenthood are quite good, for example; the national one less so but still OK. The ACLU is lean. A lot of ones that seem good-intentioned end up with almost no money going to the theoretical cause.
This point will never make it through; all the baggers need is the word “cut,” ’cause all they’re interested in is attacking Obama. I have yet to see actual concern or proposals for policy, just butthurt. Remember ACA–half a billion in Medicare cuts, all out of Big Pharma’s payments; no reduction in benefits. The stupid, it burns.
Which is really fucking insulting and patronizing to Elizabeth Warren, BTW. That Warren is some Obot-DNC tool w/out a mind of her own, considering her long career as a consumer advocate and the FACT that she regularly took Obama and Democrats to task when she was in an oversight role, ya know, right under the President’s nose. She really, really doesn’t deserve that.
Compare Southern Poverty Law Center with the ACLU. Ugh. Not a kind comparison, if you’re SPLC. I know they have a noble past, but, well, I don’t know what happened there.
Right after admitting that you don’t know what the policy is, admitting that you don’t know if the cuts proposed are positive or negative (or whether Obama has actually proposed cuts), and not having evidenced any understanding of the politics, and having apparently decided that actual statements by Obama on the issue cannot possibly be true, and having denied that you’re simply bashing Obama, you spout:
And then try to tell somebody else about credibility problems.
Confused. Are you saying that the act of comparing ACLU to SPLC is unkind or that SPLC looks bad in relation to ACLU? I’m guessing the latter, but as a perma-ACLU subscriber, I want to know all the dirt, if there is any.
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Sooo…someone did actually ask them and I missed their reply?
I don’t get this attitude. Isn’t negotiation about mixing in shit you want with shit they want? You have no evidence whatsoever that any benefit is being “offered up.” You know, or should, that both programs need working on–SS minorly, Medicare majorly. ACA is one attempt on the medical cost side, but unlikely enough by itself. You know the repubs have to have something, anything called cuts to get the teabags off their…well, you know. Do you actually think it would be a bad thing if a package included cost cuts in Medicare, if benefits aren’t hurt?
Obviously, I don’t expect that all of the stupid is on the right wing; but having apoplexy when there is no benefit cut proposal even rumored is just that.
Is it appropriate and important for progressives to consistently say, “we’re not accepting benefit cuts!” Of course; we say it, Obama says it, Pelosi says it, Reid says it. But too many can’t distinguish between that statement, and frothing on about betrayal and traitor and “no better than…” and the rest of the idiotic personal attacks on the president. And anybody who thinks allying with Norquist, or keeping a good activist progressive dem out of the US Senate, or voting republican, is the best way to accomplish progressive goals is just too fucking stupid for words.
SPLC wastes a lot of money on overhead, and the ACLU spends very little on it.
@Marc: For the record, even with their score adjustments, I think Charity Navigator’s efficiency ratings are oversimplified. Especially when it’s way easier to get volunteers for the charity’s sexier primary functions than for its faceless administrative functions. Plus, in some instances, achieving good administration is the hardest part.
@Marc: Yeah. I figured that’s what Kay was referring to. However, I do think it’s interesting that Anthony Romero’s salary doesn’t come out of ACLU’s budget.
Fair point – but I do trust large differences (e.g. between the SPLC and the ACLU). In particular, a large fraction spent on fundraising is a huge red flag; the best explanation is incompetence and the worst is fraud.
but having apoplexy when there is no benefit cut proposal even rumored
I agree that it’s a definite red flag. But I don’t agree with your best and worst explanations, per se. It could be that the ACLU’s natural donor base–pursuant to its mission statement, of course–is a wealthier one, thereby requiring fewer fundraising resources. I’m not going to claim to know one way or another on this, but it is conceivable.
OK. You’ve finally succeeded in making me loathe this Adam Green guy.
Don’t mess with my Stephen!
And Les, the whole Obama framing of the negotiations is just stupid.
Do nothing – budget balances. Not listed as a choice.
Instead, Obama assumes the permanence of the Bush Tax Cuts, and now is negotiating away my retirement benefits to pay for the Bush Tax Cuts and the Bush Wars.
This is lousy negotiating and morally wrong. Period. There is no defense, which is why Obots start talking about 11 dimensional chess and rope-a-dope.
All of the negotiation, however, from Simpson-Bowels to now, has legitimated stealing from grandma to give to the MOTU. Now we all think 25% top marginal rate is a Good Thing, as long as we can get rid of those pesky home mortgage and charitable giving deductions. How fucked up is that?
The only possible explanation is that Obama feels that he must lower tax rates on the wealthiest or they will cause him to not be re-elected. Sad.
Thank you for proving my point. Adjusting the COLA mechanism isn’t a benefit cut, if you’re sane. If the adjustment doesn’t work, you redo it–and that wouldn’t be a benefit increase. It’s grasping at straws. When Obama signs off on the Gang of Six as anything other than “I support negotiating,” or if there’s an actual, you know, legislative proposal, get back to me. It is in fact balanced, compared to other congressional proposals; that neither defines the balance, nor says WH has accepted anything. You’re Chicken Little with an ax to grind, redefining overreaction on a daily basis.
I’m on earth, dealing with reality. Where the fuck are you?
@dollared 116: i misread your original comment. i thought you had said “it is clearly not illegal” not “it is not clearly illegal.”
i agree with you that it is not clearly illegal, and said as much in my post.
As for shooting someone on “our team,” i’m not sure what team Adam Green is on, but it’s not mine, for the reasons set forth in Joy-Ann’s posts. You disagree. Fantastic. I think we can both move on.
@bmull: I’d suggest you read the Anti Cybersquatting Act and relevant case law and then maybe you can speak intelligently about what “the only wrong thing” is. But nice attempt to change the subject.
Fuck me to tears. Do the words “deficit cap” ring a bell? If you have to negotiate anyway–and only a complete idiot suggests the WH do nothing but watch–you try to get something out of it. You have no fucking clue what Obama has put on the table, nor what he will accept. But you know in your heart it’s betrayal. What a putz.
Les, on my planet, less money is less money. 10% less money is 10% that can’t be spent on food, clothing, rent and healthcare.
Can I move to your planet, where benefit cuts leave you just as much money as before?
dollared: it seems to me as if you’re interpreting rumors about what Obama intends and doing so with the most negative interpretation possible. It’s utterly typical for politicians to say soothing words (“promising approach”, “encouraging”, etc.) even about things that they have no intention of supporting.
I don’t like the idea of lower marginal tax rates, but if capital gains got reclassified as income you might end up with much higher effective rates for the plutocrats. Once again, details matter.
I want to throw a question out there:
Hypothetically speaking (since everyone seems to be dealing in hypotheticals) today: If Obama plans to “strengthen Medicare” by, say, disallowing hacks like Marcus Bachmann to obtain Medicare funding to degay people, would that be a cut? And if so, is that a cut that you oppose?
/Obot levels dialed up to eleventy.
Les, as far as the cap goes, that was Obama’s choice. He set up this negotiation. And how he negotiates is his choice.
17 times Reagan raised it. Obama could have just sat there and said that, a thousand times over. But he set this up exactly the way he wanted.
That doesn’t comport with my view of things.
Facts not in evidence, ABL. And you’re ignoring my perfectly valid points regarding PCCC.
Now I really would like to know what planet you’re on. Obama chose to set up the debt ceiling, what, 50 years ago? Obama chose to have a routine housekeeping vote, accomplished dozens of times without hoo-rah, become a cause for teabaggers? Obama initiated demands of no raise without spending cuts? No wonder you have so much trouble with reality.
dollared, i see no perfectly valid points regarding PCCC sufficient to overcome my points about PCCC. as such, i’m not going to argue with you about it, especially since my review of your comments thus far indicate an incapability of arguing in good faith.
and for someone keening about what Obama has or hasn’t done, your “facts not in evidence” objection is not well-taken.
as always, this has been fun, but i have things to do. will check back in later.
ABL – I am absolutely and unequivocally for ending Medicare payments to any and all straw men…even if it results in a cut in their actual benefits.
Bruce S – July 21, 2011 | 2:43 pm · Link
#77 – dollared: prepare yourself for near-insane abuse.
While it is my nascent practice to ignore such comments, I have to say that it’s sad that you continue to throw my name around in that manner (and this one too), especially when last week you were complaining about that same type of behavior on the part of my “fans” and even claimed that you would address me with respect in the future:
Why lament that my threads devolve into insults if you’re going to participate? Why not just throw your lot in with the trolls? At least they seem to enjoy acting the fool on my threads.
Well, dollared, you’re not alone in claiming the debt ceiling issue is Obama’s; the House Teabag caucus agrees with you. As Benen says,
Well, like President Obama, you are Black, so…okay!
True Progressives, Unite!1!1!11
ABL, you are a smear artist that can’t back up the smears. I’ve got no brief for the PCCC, and I agree that typosquatting is a poor and possibly illegal way to score hits, but yours is equally reprehensible. You call someone a grifter, you allege misuse of funds, prove it or STFU.
Les, I never said the debt ceiling issue was Obama’s. I said it was his choice to turn it into a negotiation. No one had ever done that before.
I’ll ignore your other shit.
i remain shocked, shocked to find out that a non-profit organization isn’t living up to its mission statement and is instead using its funds as a make-work and personal enrichment device. this has never happened before. ever.
great job scooby gang, i look forward to hearing the next exciting chapter in your investigation!
also, too, anybody who gives money to a fucking internet ad group is a fucking dumbass who gets what they have coming to them.
Wow, dollared, you know how to hijack a comment thread, don’t you. You might want to actually read the posts a little more carefully. ABL presented the facts, she chose her words wisely as she always does. She is meticulous about her facts and backing up her statements and yes, she calls it like she sees it and doesn’t mince words, life is too fucking short to beat around the bush.
You’ve said several times things to the effect of “I don’t love the PCCC”, yet you have spent the entire day on this comment defending them, trying to discredit the author and spewing your own faux reality.
If it ain’t no big thing, then why have you spent so much time defending him. If he didn’t do anything wrong, you’d say, nothing to see here, move along. But like I said, you’ve spent the entire day on this threat…and probably others too. I hope PCCC is paying you well! And if they aren’t, I suggest you go take a walk, interact with people, smile and do something a little more productive with yourself.
ABL – since within minutes “dollared” was called an Obama-hater by one of your commenters, my prediction was fulfilled. I didn’t say you would fulfill it. I’m not asking you to take responsibility for the persistent tone of the “firebagger” hysterics that runs through many of these comments, but don’t deny that it exists or act like it’s a personal attack if I push back against some of the idiocy.
So yeah – I didn’t take my own good advice. That’s on me. But don’t complain if I point out that even someone as relatively substantive in most of his comments as “Martin” falls prey to dismissive crap about “Firebaggers” that totally evades some very serious issues regarding what is “on the table” and how best to respond in the midst of the uncertainty.
I don’t think the folks in your corner help the Democrats at all. The White House doesn’t need protection from the likes of Adam Green. Unless they are as bad as the worst of the anti-Obama types here claim they are – which is not my POV – the White House must surely see the “Adam Greens” (as O’Donnell sees them) as helping draw whatever lines they really do want to draw under any final deal. I can’t say, right now, that I know where that line might be, which causes me considerable consternation. If you’re cool with “whatever,” so be it. And that said, the very notion of bringing Medicare or Social Security into this hostage situation doesn’t even approach being a good idea. It’s a signal of either being clueless or backed into a corner. I’m not smarter than the President, but neither am I a White House flak, so I retain the right to keep my head screwed on and think for myself.
And you are as ignorantly inaccurate now, as you were the first time. I mean really, the first rule of effective lying is to at least be fuzzily plausible.
christ. the blog wide whining circle jerks from our po aggrieved firebagger population is reaching red line levels. I may have to start reciting Obot poetry to balm their wounds. The tears I keep though, to sweeten my tea.
@176 Extreme, I didn’t hijack the comment thread, I rebutted a smear. Count the posts – most people did not deal with me or my rebuttal.
To explain myself, I don’t like smear artists, and I really hate people who smear as a form of political enforcement. ABL is the Murdoch of the Middle, all to protect Obama’s left flank.
IMHO, the evil left is merely following Obama’s request – “Make me do the right thing.”
And Jane Hamsher is Jane Hamsher a unique individual who has nothing to do with what goes on beyond her blog.
OK Les, you’re part of the Helpless Barack the victim crowd. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
les at #160 – actually, you’re the one who clearly has no clue. “Dollared” was absolutely correct when he said “do nothing – budget balances.” As Ezra Klein and others have shown – based on CBO scoring – the only way we have significant annual deficits over the next ten years is IF CONGRESS ACTS TO CREATE THEM. It requires Congress to renew the Bush tax cuts with pro-active legislation, just as it requires Congress to raise doctors rates on Medicare for Medicare to go out of balance in a budget that’s predicated on the Clinton-era tax rates – which will be in effect if Congress “does nothing.” So this entire “deficit” debate is bullshit from out-of-the-gate. It’s a tax-cut problem. The particulars of “do nothing” may not be optimal policy in every area – although just letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be excellent – but it’s a fact that Congress has to ACT and pass new bills to create more deficits.
If you don’t know this, you shouldn’t be yammering about any of these issues. The debt-ceiling is actually another issue entirely – and one which has never been linked to such radical measures as BOTH Obama and the House Republicans are proposing. It’s a technical issue regarding current expenditures, turned into a “crisis” by crazy people.
If one sees no alternative to negotiating on their terms, it would seem prudent to not accept 85% of their premise for starters or not at least point out that over the next ten years the deficits will require a Congressional majority embracing deficit-inducing policies that are not mandated by existing legislation or have anything to do with “entitlements” to become fact.
You should understand that Extreme Liberal is not only a chump, but also a co-blogger at the other blog ABL runs.
It’s almost like les thinks the Republicans won the House back in 2010 and immediately began threatening to use their restored power over the budget and debt ceiling to grind the world to a halt. Where would he get the crazy idea that that happened?
@ extreme, note that you asserted that I didn’t read carefully. Now go back and read my first post and note how carefully I did read ABL’s laundry list of accusations, and how I responded to each one. And follow ABL’s links, and you’ll see the real crime at the Reid Report and the People’s view. It turns out that – Greene’s crime is that he used Obama’s own words against him on the subject of Medicare cuts!
Clearly this man belongs in jail.
@ Cornerstone. Thanks.
dollared, your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. green put words into obama’s mouth regarding medicare cuts in order to generate outrage. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.
adam green said the following in his fundraising email:
“Significance: This is the first time Obama admitted he is pushing “benefit” cuts that would hurt our grandparents, kids, and the disabled — not just “savings” like negotiating lower drug prices.”
Now if you find me any evidence that “Obama admitted he is pushing benefit cuts that would hurt our grandparents, kids, and the disabled,” I’ll eat a deep-fried shoelace.
Wake me up when you find it. You’ll probably have to actually read Joy’s post for meaning. I know, I know, outrage is less fun when facts exist contradicting it.
oh and by the way, kudos for “murdoch of the middle.” i chuckled when i read that.
For those who’d like a little more context as to why this fact free jihad series continues, you should skim Adam Green’s twitter stream @adamgreenonline.
He makes some grievous errors in that he’s not sufficiently kool-aidful and further, questions where, if any, a breaking point exists for President Obama’s most ardent supporters.
Some have been quoted as answering “not even if you found him balls deep in a goat”.
If that helps anyone put the puzzle together a little better.
It’s like ten thousand spoons when all you need is to take your meds.
“right-wing authoritarian.” hahahahahaha.
This is just fucking lazy, kid. You already hate the guy based on the moronic caricature you painted of him, but evidently you’re too ashamed to let that be it. So now you need even more excuses.
LOL! the very people calling Obama supporters obots are actually here defending scam artists. Its right fucking there in your faces and you refuse to acknowledge it. ABL didn’t have to make shit up, twist anyone’s words take things out of context. ITS RIGHT FUCKING THERE! Think about the shit you’ve said on this thread the next time you wonder why those teatards continue to support people like Palin, Beck and Rush.
Grifting, grifting….grifting the night away.
Just like a winger to blame their delusions and irrational thinking on someone else.
Just like a winger to blame their delusions and irrational thinking on someone else. I used to see this bullshit at DKOS and thought it was one of the dumbest shit I have ever read.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@193 silly bitch
That is a false blanket statement. I have noticed that you also like to equate criticism of President Obama from the left with criticism of President Obama from the right, which of course it is not.
You do know that research was done through the lens of the oppressive white male patriarchy, right?
Not the type of work usually cited by long time progressives….
Wow. Tired of Right-Wing-Enabling-Pseudo-Left-Wingers, you are completely full of shit aren’t you. Isn’t it about time to moderate this blog? Every damn other blog does it, right?
@Extreme Liberal: Whyn’t you take your dainty ass back to the mothership where you and the Hall Monitor can ban as you please.
@Uncle Clarence Thomas: Uncle Clarence Thomas, as a man who understands the human condition, if someone told you they would support a public official no matter what, and indeed, “What could he do to lose my support? Nothing. Nothing. Not even if you caught him balls-deep in a goat. Satisfied?”
What potential remedy could you envision for that state of mental(?) affairs ?
Oh good, finally some substance to these anti-PCCC screeds. Yeah I don’t see anything remotely defensible about the typo-squatting (hey I learned a new word) going on here. I don’t see how it relates to Swartz though. ABL has been throwing shit at this wall for months, even going so far as to rope Swartz and his failed open-source-fundamentalist document-freeing expedition into political issues that the related charges have nothing to do with.
Personally if it wasn’t for Stephen Colbert in the title I woulda just went, “Right, this again,” and skipped the post. Maybe your intention is to only talk to people who already agree with you, I dunno. For my part a few less posts about Adam Green having gingivitis and Jane Hamser being behind on her car payments would be cool. You have to pick your battles, at least if you’re interested in speaking to people who don’t already have a personal problem with your target.
Neither do you, yet for some reason you’re trying to afford your own interpretation of his public posture a considerably greater degree of weight. I wonder why that is?
As for this, “Did anyone ask the PCCC about this?” stuff, that would’ve been nice but it isn’t necessary. They setup a landing page specifically for the hits that’re coming in from their typo-squatted URL. That’s why you see
appended to the Bold Progressive URL. Maybe they have a reasonable explanation for why they did this, but it was them.
…this time. It’s not like she has no history with this.
It’s interesting, isn’t it? In the next 3 minutes I can register and setup a website to redirect to any website in the world. You can’t stop me.
Now, I have no idea what the point of this URL is. Fact is, nobody here does either, mainly because no one bothered to ask before they shit out this post.
My broader objection to groups like this (of course, anyone can disagree and join, this is my opinion) is that they’re poaching. There’s a reason that word is used.
I think the concept is wrong-headed, if the objective is to make “more liberals”. They don’t create anything. They slice and dice an existing group of people, whether it’s Colbert’s fans or Obama donors or, broadly, “Democrats”.
I’l give you a local example of the reverse, in organizing. We started a local group in 2004 that are, broadly, “Democrats”. In 2005, members of that group who are environmentalists asked for the original list (which I gave them) because they wanted to start an issue-oriented off-shoot. But they didn’t stop with my list. They took my list and made it bigger. They brought in all kinds of people that weren’t on my list. They made something new and unique. I don’t see groups like the one at the top of the page doing that. Instead, they’re taking something someone else made and carving out a portion. That’s what “poaching” and “slice and dice” means, and that’s why, to me, it isn’t inherently a positive act.