• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

Republicans: “Abortion is murder but you can take a bus to get one.” Easy peasy.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

This fight is for everything.

Republicans firmly believe having an abortion is a very personal, very private decision between a woman and J.D. Vance.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Trumpflation is an intolerable hardship for every American, and it’s Trump’s fault.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Economics / Grifters Gonna Grift / Adam Green and Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) Rip Off Stephen Colbert

Adam Green and Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) Rip Off Stephen Colbert

by Imani Gandy (ABL)|  July 21, 20111:23 pm| 202 Comments

This post is in: Grifters Gonna Grift

FacebookTweetEmail

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.

~snip~

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/.

(read the rest)

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.

::shrug::

Either way, grifters gonna grift.


UPDATE: Needs more Beastie Boys (h/t @snkscoyote):

(H/T Maritza!)

[image via Jay Carax]

[cross-posted]
FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Exciting News! Well, it was expected, but still
Next Post: The Grand Bargain »

Reader Interactions

202Comments

  1. 1.

    Yevgraf

    July 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Goody! We need a 400 post thread with a bunch of firebagger trolls piling on to you, and trying to refute this….

  2. 2.

    Joel

    July 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Now this is an actual example of grifting. (link broken, FYI).

  3. 3.

    pragmatism

    July 21, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    hey abl, your cite to colbert’s actual pac appears solely as tsuperpac.com it should be colbertsuperpac.com, right?

  4. 4.

    Jamie

    July 21, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    That’s just sad. I wonder if Colbert knows about this.

  5. 5.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    @pragmatism: yes. thanks!

  6. 6.

    Corey

    July 21, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    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?

  7. 7.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    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.

    how delightful.

  8. 8.

    boss bitch

    July 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    @Corey:

    Reading Is Fundamental. Plus it prevents you from making a fool of yourself.

  9. 9.

    Mary Jane

    July 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    @ Yevgraf

    Well, we just had mistermix defending the firebagger gasbag Cenk Uygur, now it’s ABL’s turn as an O-bot. Only fair.

  10. 10.

    pragmatism

    July 21, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    grifers gonna grift
    liars gonna lie
    firebaggers comin’
    to start a war with pie

  11. 11.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    July 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    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.

  12. 12.

    NonyNony

    July 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    @boss bitch

    Reading Is Fundamental. Plus it prevents you from making a fool of yourself.

    Not really. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.

  13. 13.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    What Joel said. And it’s a good reminder for me to donate to Colbert’s SuperPAC.

  14. 14.

    AxelFoley

    July 21, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    What a bitch move.

  15. 15.

    BTD

    July 21, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    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.

  16. 16.

    KCinDC

    July 21, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    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.

  17. 17.

    FlipYrWhig

    July 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    @ Mary Jane : I like “firebagger gasbag.” It smells like victory dickery.

    ETA: Um, his, I mean.

  18. 18.

    Nick L

    July 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    WELL MAYBE IF OBAMA HAD SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE THIS WOULDNT HAVE FUCKING HAPPENED

  19. 19.

    Trollenschlongen

    July 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    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.

  20. 20.

    Scott

    July 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    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!

  21. 21.

    Trollenschlongen

    July 21, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Also, too: Doesn’t Colbert’s PAC make him a GRIFTER!!!!!?

  22. 22.

    AxelFoley

    July 21, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    @Corey:

    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 Greenwald bootlicker graces us with his presence here, I see.

  23. 23.

    Tonybrown74

    July 21, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    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?

    Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo Stick … really???

    You are a simpleton and an asshole, rolled up into one neat little brown-eyed package!

  24. 24.

    Betty Cracker

    July 21, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    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…

  25. 25.

    Corey

    July 21, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    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.

    The point isn’t to uncover something shady, it’s to attack a progressive group that has occasionally criticized the president from the left.

  26. 26.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    desperate, obsessive, and unnecessary

    that’s my middle name.

    thanks for your input, though.

  27. 27.

    aisce

    July 21, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    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.

  28. 28.

    KCinDC

    July 21, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    I don’t understand the bit about PCCC being questionable because they received “only” 60,000 donations in a week.

  29. 29.

    Mark S.

    July 21, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Can I have the Cliff Notes version of what the fuck the PCCC is? Are they affiliated in any way with Lady Jane Hamsher?

  30. 30.

    BTD

    July 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    On second thought, strike my comment.

    Never mind.

  31. 31.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    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.

    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.

  32. 32.

    JGabriel

    July 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    @KCinDC:

    This certainly looks shady, and “grifting” is used accurately here. But it has no connection or resemblance to what Aaron Swartz did …

    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.

    .

  33. 33.

    Poopyman

    July 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    @Corey:

    The point isn’t to uncover something shady, it’s to attack a progressive group that has occasionally criticized the president from the left.

    Bold talk for someone who just admitted that they didn’t read the post.

  34. 34.

    Martin

    July 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    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.

    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.

  35. 35.

    Mark S.

    July 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    @KCinDC:

    I don’t understand the bit about PCCC being questionable because they received “only” 60,000 donations in a week.

    Yeah, that sounds pretty good to me. If that’s a really low number, then I really need to start me a PAC.

  36. 36.

    Culture of Truth

    July 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Ha!

    A baseless ‘Dear Leader’ crack. Those never get old.

  37. 37.

    Jamie

    July 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    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.

  38. 38.

    NobodySpecial

    July 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Link no worky. You fix?

  39. 39.

    taylormattd

    July 21, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Love you very much ABL, don’t listen to the firebaggers.

  40. 40.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    July 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    @JGabriel:

    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.

    Well of course that’s quite accurate, but to be so precise makes for a much weaker headline.

  41. 41.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    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.

  42. 42.

    Gin & Tonic

    July 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    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?

  43. 43.

    Corey

    July 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Bold talk for someone who just admitted that they didn’t read the post.

    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.

  44. 44.

    taylormattd

    July 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    And to me, this is the worst part:

    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.

    This is the kind of shit these firebagging groups appear to do all the time. Grifting indeed.

  45. 45.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    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.

  46. 46.

    Citizen_X

    July 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Trollenschlongen:

    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.

    So what now, Colbert’s The Enemy? Tunch wept.

  47. 47.

    anonymous

    July 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Now that’s sleazy.

  48. 48.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    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.

  49. 49.

    ET

    July 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    What is the difference between this guy and PCCC and James O’Keefe in terms of ethics?

  50. 50.

    Mark D

    July 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    The point isn’t to uncover something shady, it’s to attack a progressive group that has occasionally criticized the president from the left.

    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 …

  51. 51.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    July 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    .
    .
    @25 Corey

    The point isn’t to uncover something shady, it’s to attack a progressive group that has occasionally criticized the president from the left.

    You are correct, and I note that the abominABLe snowman refused to answer your question, as any perp would refuse. Thread over.
    .
    .

  52. 52.

    FlipYrWhig

    July 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    @ 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.

  53. 53.

    NonyNony

    July 21, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    @Corey

    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.

    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.

  54. 54.

    taylormattd

    July 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @ 51 – FlipYrWhig

    Please explain this:

    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.

  55. 55.

    Joseph Nobles

    July 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    OT, but just got this email from the Washington Post:

    President Obama and House Republican leaders are deep in negotiations over a far-reaching plan to save $3 trillion over the next decade, congressional leaders have been told. Aides said the savings would come through sharp cuts in agency spending and changes to popular health and retirement programs — but without any immediate increase in taxes.

    No actual details yet, of course.

  56. 56.

    stuck working

    July 21, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    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

  57. 57.

    Tonal Crow

    July 21, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    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?

  58. 58.

    ShadeTail

    July 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Corey:

    You don’t really even need to read these things.

    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.

  59. 59.

    NobodySpecial

    July 21, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    OpenSecrets page:

    Link

    Administrative Salaries & Benefits $503,788
    Rent/Utilities $86,468
    Miscellaneous Administrative $84,030
    Travel $27,257
    Supplies, Equipment & Furniture $21,957
    Food/Meetings $1,316
    Postage/Shipping $431
    Campaign Expenses Political Consultants $145,502
    Polling/Surveys/Research $43,300
    Campaign Events $4,783
    GOTV $3,298
    Materials $1,928
    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.

  60. 60.

    Han's Big Snark Solo

    July 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    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.

    http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/fun-numbers

  61. 61.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    @stuck working: Good article. Thanks for the link. There’s some interesting stuff in the comments there too.

  62. 62.

    taylormattd

    July 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    @58 – NobodySpecial

    Yikes. I’m obviously in the wrong business.

  63. 63.

    NobodySpecial

    July 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    @taylormattd: Ain’t we all.

  64. 64.

    andrewsomething

    July 21, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    @taylormattd

    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.

    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.

  65. 65.

    aimai

    July 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    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.

    aimai

  66. 66.

    Sleeper

    July 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    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.

  67. 67.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    July 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    aimai

    Its very clear that you are reading and donating to the PCCC site itself.

    But is it made clear that PCCC has absolutely no relationship with Colbert’s PAC?

  68. 68.

    Extreme Liberal

    July 21, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    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.

  69. 69.

    taylormattd

    July 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    @58 – NobodySpecial

    Two things:

    (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.

  70. 70.

    FlipYrWhig

    July 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    @ 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.

  71. 71.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    @Sleeper:

    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.

    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.

  72. 72.

    lacp

    July 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Pretty sleazy, indeed. And aren’t dirty tricks supposed to be deployed on your opposition, not your allies?

  73. 73.

    Extreme Liberal

    July 21, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    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.

  74. 74.

    Corey

    July 21, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    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.

  75. 75.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    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.

    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

    transitive verb
    : to obtain (money) illicitly (as in a confidence game)
    intransitive verb
    : 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.

  76. 76.

    aimai

    July 21, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    @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.

    aimai

  77. 77.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    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.

  78. 78.

    Jay B.

    July 21, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    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.

    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.

  79. 79.

    MattR

    July 21, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    @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.

  80. 80.

    gwangung

    July 21, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    taylormattd: Apparently it IS rocket science to read the disclosure statements….

  81. 81.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    #77 – dollared: prepare yourself for near-insane abuse.

    Just saying..

  82. 82.

    Sleeper

    July 21, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    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.

    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.

  83. 83.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    I don’t like the typosquatting, but it is not clearly illegal.

    that is clearly false.

    perhaps it is you who should come up with something better, dear.

  84. 84.

    MattR

    July 21, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    @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)?

  85. 85.

    aimai

    July 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    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.

    aimai

  86. 86.

    fasteddie9318

    July 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    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?

  87. 87.

    Dennis SGMM

    July 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    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!

  88. 88.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    @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.

  89. 89.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    #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?

  90. 90.

    JGabriel

    July 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    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:

    Barbara Butler, an artist and playhouse builder in San Francisco, said her sales are up 40 percent this year, and she has twice as many future commissions lined up as she did this time last year. Not only that, but the average price of the structures she is being hired to build has more than doubled, from $26,000 to $54,000.
    __
    “Childhood is a precious and finite thing,” Ms. Butler said. “And a special playhouse is not the sort of thing you can put off until the economy gets better.”
    __
    […]
    __
    Dan Burnham, who retired as chairman and chief executive officer of Raytheon, the defense systems manufacturer, in 2003, wanted something elaborate for the 187-acre retreat he and his wife, Meg, have in the Santa Ynez Mountains outside Santa Barbara, Calif. So he hired Ms. Butler in San Francisco to create a site-specific structure.
    __
    “I wanted another reason for the grandkids to come over,” said Mr. Burnham, 64. “Also, I wanted to be able to go up there on Sunday morning and read The New York Times Magazine.”__
    The multilevel house Ms. Butler built for him in 2007 incorporates three trees into its complex design, which includes a trap door, a swinging extension bridge and winding stairs. It also has a gabled roof made of corrugated tin, an interior with hand-carved rafters and beams, and windows made of shatter-resistant laminated glass. Connected to the treehouse with a zip line is a second, fortlike structure with carved finials and flagpoles, as well as a rock wall, a firefighters’ pole and a slide.
    __
    “We’ve got chairs arrayed all around it, so we can watch the kids run, climb and scream,” he said. “It’s adorable and worth every penny.” (Nearly $248,000 for the two structures.)

    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!

    .

  91. 91.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    @Sleeper:

    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.

    OK. I hear you. Same here.

  92. 92.

    MattR

    July 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    @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)

  93. 93.

    Culture of Truth

    July 21, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    I’ll say it – if the facts alleged regarding the url address are true, it’s “clearly illegal.”

    Sue me.

  94. 94.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    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.

  95. 95.

    MikeJ

    July 21, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    @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.

  96. 96.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    @MattR:

    I will always wonder what he is omitting that might provide a fuller context of the story.

    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.

  97. 97.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    @ Marc, I read the links. Show me how Greene is not on the same team. I oppose Social Security cuts. Do you support them?

  98. 98.

    MaximusNYC

    July 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    The ad I got under this post, and above the comment thread, was a “DRAFT ELIZABETH WARREN FOR SENATE!” banner… from PCCC.

  99. 99.

    Tone In DC

    July 21, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    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.

  100. 100.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    #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.

  101. 101.

    Trollenschlongen

    July 21, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Stephen Colbert asks for donations. Ergo he is a grifter. Discuss.

  102. 102.

    Lawnguylander

    July 21, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    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.

  103. 103.

    Bobby Thomson

    July 21, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    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.

    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.

  104. 104.

    Dennis SGMM

    July 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    @Tone In DC:

    The regular B-J crowd is no better.

    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.

  105. 105.

    Bobby Thomson

    July 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    @102

    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.

  106. 106.

    Martin

    July 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    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!

    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.

  107. 107.

    MattR

    July 21, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    @slag:

    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.

    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.

  108. 108.

    JGabriel

    July 21, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    @MikeJ:

    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.

    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!

    .

  109. 109.

    bmull

    July 21, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    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.

  110. 110.

    Mark S.

    July 21, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    @JGabriel:

    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!

    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.

  111. 111.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    July 21, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    aimai

    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.

    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.

  112. 112.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Haha! Loving my first email from Colbert’s PAC:

    Dear {VALUE=FIRSTNAME} {VALUE=LASTNAME},

    So true!

  113. 113.

    Phil Perspective

    July 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    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?

  114. 114.

    JGabriel

    July 21, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    @Martin:

    Actually, you fell into the GOP trap here. The playhouses actually do create jobs.

    The future’s so bright … I gotta wear shades!

    .

  115. 115.

    Phil Perspective

    July 21, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    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.

  116. 116.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    @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.

  117. 117.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    @MattR: Yeah. You’re right. My main original objection to Sleeper’s statement came at this point:

    undermines the case she puts forward here.

    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.

  118. 118.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    July 21, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    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.

  119. 119.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    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.

  120. 120.

    bk

    July 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Some of these comments look like they are being made by the same people who so intelligently comment on Yahoo sports articles. wth?

  121. 121.

    Corner Stone

    July 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    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.

  122. 122.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    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.

  123. 123.

    Tonal Crow

    July 21, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    @Corner Stone:

    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.

    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.

  124. 124.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    @ 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.

  125. 125.

    Martin

    July 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Fucking communism capitalism!

    Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a bill that officially classifies beer as alcoholic.
    __
    Until now anything containing less than 10% alcohol in Russia has been considered a foodstuff.

  126. 126.

    Jody

    July 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Really, if Colbert wanted to stay in theme he’da done supertcolbertPAC.com

  127. 127.

    kay

    July 21, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    dollared

    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?

  128. 128.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    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.

  129. 129.

    Corner Stone

    July 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    @Tonal Crow:

    That would be committing journalism, which is an unforgivable sin. Also “why…” should be “if… . And if so, why”

    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.

  130. 130.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Marc – July 21, 2011 | 3:33 pm · Link

    Phil: it seems as there is a cadre on the left that really hates Obama. I mean, deeply. Much more so than the Republicans

    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.

  131. 131.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    Hi Kay,

    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….

  132. 132.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    kay: that does seem like a very, very low yield even if you include the media component. The admin overhead is very large.

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=48

    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.

  133. 133.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    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.

  134. 134.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    “One is bad, one is good – at least to me. We don’t know which one Obama is talking about”

    Which is why it’s absolutely essential to lay on the line that we are unalterably opposed to the “bad.” If not “the base”, who will speak up if, as you admit, the WH won’t draw a clear line, for whatever reason.

    But more to the point, Obama is dead wrong to be having a conversation about the future of Medicare or Social Security in the middle of a hostage-taking that has absolutely NOTHING to do with either. It’s terrible politics and terrible policy. No amount of bullshit apologetics can change that fact.

  135. 135.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    cleek, if you’re here can you repost the pie filter? It’s clearly needed now more than ever.

    Edit: nevermind.

    http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/balloon_juice_disemvoweller.user.js

  136. 136.

    Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)

    July 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    Corner Stone
    Tonal Crow

    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.

    Fail.

  137. 137.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    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.”

  138. 138.

    kay

    July 21, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Marc – July 21, 2011 | 3:48 pm · Link
    kay: that does seem like a very, very low yield even if you include the media component. The admin overhead is very large.
    http://www.charitynavigator.or…..38;cpid=48
    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.

    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 :)

  139. 139.

    Bobby Thomson

    July 21, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    @113

    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.

  140. 140.

    wildfire

    July 21, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    @ABL

    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.

    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.

  141. 141.

    Dennis SGMM

    July 21, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    @Bruce S:
    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.

  142. 142.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    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.

  143. 143.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    @Marc:
    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.

  144. 144.

    kay

    July 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    @113
    Need I remind you of the Hamsher quote. Her exact reasoning was that if Warren runs for Senate she can’t attack Democrats.

    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.

  145. 145.

    kay

    July 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    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.

    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.

  146. 146.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    @Bruce S:
    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:

    Obama is dead wrong to be having a conversation about the future of Medicare or Social Security in the middle of a hostage-taking that has absolutely NOTHING to do with either. It’s terrible politics and terrible policy. No amount of bullshit apologetics can change that fact.

    And then try to tell somebody else about credibility problems.

  147. 147.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    @kay:

    Not a kind comparison, if you’re SPLC. I know they have a noble past, but, well, I don’t know what happened there.

    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.

  148. 148.

    Corner Stone

    July 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    @Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Sooo…someone did actually ask them and I missed their reply?

  149. 149.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    @Dennis SGMM:

    I agree with you: offering up SS and Medicare to negotiation with the Republicans is a huge mistake

    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.

  150. 150.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    slag:

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4482

    SPLC wastes a lot of money on overhead, and the ACLU spends very little on it.

  151. 151.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    @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.

  152. 152.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    @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.

  153. 153.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    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.

  154. 154.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    @ Les

    but having apoplexy when there is no benefit cut proposal even rumored

    You are simply wrong. Have you not read Ezra Klein for the last six months. Have you not heard of Chained CPI calculation? Have you read the Gang of six proposal? Step one: cut Social Security payouts 10% over 20 years, via chained CPI calculation.

    Have you not heard Obama talk about the Gang of six negotiations as the thing he supports? Even today the White House called it “balanced.”

    And that’s only one cut. The White House acknowledged that Obama offered a Medicare starting age of 67.

    What planet are you on?

  155. 155.

    slag

    July 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    @Marc:

    In particular, a large fraction spent on fundraising is a huge red flag; the best explanation is incompetence and the worst is fraud.

    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.

  156. 156.

    kc

    July 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    OK. You’ve finally succeeded in making me loathe this Adam Green guy.

    Don’t mess with my Stephen!

  157. 157.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    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.

  158. 158.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    @dollared:
    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?

  159. 159.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    @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.

  160. 160.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    @dollared:

    Do nothing – budget balances. Not listed as a choice.

    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.

  161. 161.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    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?

  162. 162.

    Marc

    July 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    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.

  163. 163.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    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.

  164. 164.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    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.

  165. 165.

    gwangung

    July 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    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.

  166. 166.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Facts not in evidence, ABL. And you’re ignoring my perfectly valid points regarding PCCC.

  167. 167.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    @dollared:

    Les, as far as the cap goes, that was Obama’s choice.

    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.

  168. 168.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    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.

  169. 169.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    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.

  170. 170.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Bruce S – July 21, 2011 | 2:43 pm · Link

    #77 – dollared: prepare yourself for near-insane abuse.

    Just saying..

    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:

    I’m going to try to stick to making comments addressed directly to you and keep them respectful and on point (concision is not my strong suit) – you’re okay and at least as opinionated as I am and I’m sure under better circumstances and without some of the surrounding noise and escalation of rhetoric, we could probably have a decent conversation.

    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.

  171. 171.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    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,

    The scope of the irresponsibility and immaturity is almost impressive.

  172. 172.

    bonkers

    July 21, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    ABL –
    somebody should primary me.

    Well, like President Obama, you are Black, so…okay!

    True Progressives, Unite!1!1!11

  173. 173.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    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.

  174. 174.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    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.

  175. 175.

    aisce

    July 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    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.

  176. 176.

    Extreme Liberal

    July 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    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.

  177. 177.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    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.

  178. 178.

    les

    July 21, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    @dollared:

    I said it was his choice to turn it into a negotiation.

    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.

  179. 179.

    General Stuck

    July 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    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.

  180. 180.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    @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.

  181. 181.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    OK Les, you’re part of the Helpless Barack the victim crowd. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  182. 182.

    Bruce S

    July 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    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.

  183. 183.

    Corner Stone

    July 21, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    @dollared:

    @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.

    You should understand that Extreme Liberal is not only a chump, but also a co-blogger at the other blog ABL runs.

  184. 184.

    Lawnguylander

    July 21, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    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?

  185. 185.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    @ 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.

  186. 186.

    dollared

    July 21, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    @ Cornerstone. Thanks.

  187. 187.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    It turns out that – Greene’s crime is that he used Obama’s own words against him on the subject of Medicare cuts!

    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.

  188. 188.

    Corner Stone

    July 21, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    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.

  189. 189.

    ABL

    July 21, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    It’s ironic that Obama’s most extreme supporters make me detest him even more than his long list of right-wing choices.

    It’s like ten thousand spoons when all you need is to take your meds.

    “right-wing authoritarian.” hahahahahaha.

  190. 190.

    LTMidnight

    July 21, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    It’s ironic that Obama’s most extreme supporters make me detest him even more than his long list of right-wing choices.

    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.

  191. 191.

    boss bitch

    July 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm

    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.

  192. 192.

    boss bitch

    July 21, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    It’s ironic that Obama’s most extreme supporters make me detest him even more than his long list of right-wing choices.

    Just like a winger to blame their delusions and irrational thinking on someone else.

  193. 193.

    boss bitch

    July 21, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    It’s ironic that Obama’s most extreme supporters make me detest him even more than his long list of right-wing choices.

    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.

  194. 194.

    Uncle Clarence Thomas

    July 21, 2011 at 10:23 pm

    .
    .
    @193 silly bitch

    LOL! the very people calling Obama supporters obots are actually here defending scam artists.

    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.
    .
    .

  195. 195.

    gwangung

    July 21, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    Look up the psychological research on right-wing authoritarians and you’ll find that ABL fits the profile of the worst of right-wing authoritarians.

    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….

  196. 196.

    Extreme Liberal

    July 21, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    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?

  197. 197.

    Corner Stone

    July 21, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    @Extreme Liberal: Whyn’t you take your dainty ass back to the mothership where you and the Hall Monitor can ban as you please.

  198. 198.

    Corner Stone

    July 21, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    @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 ?

  199. 199.

    stinkdaddy

    July 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    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.

  200. 200.

    stinkdaddy

    July 22, 2011 at 12:24 am

    160:

    You have no fucking clue what Obama has put on the table, nor what he will accept.

    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

    ?source=COLBERSUPERPAC

    appended to the Bold Progressive URL. Maybe they have a reasonable explanation for why they did this, but it was them.

    ABL didn’t have to make shit up, twist anyone’s words take things out of context.

    …this time. It’s not like she has no history with this.

  201. 201.

    Corner Stone

    July 22, 2011 at 12:40 am

    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.

  202. 202.

    kay

    July 22, 2011 at 8:29 am

    dollared – July 21, 2011 | 6:29 pm · Link

    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.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by HinTN (5/22/25)

Recent Comments

  • RedDirtGirl on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 12:32pm)
  • Melancholy Jaques on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 12:31pm)
  • columbusqueen on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 12:29pm)
  • Suzanne on House Bill Passes (Open Thread) (May 22, 2025 @ 12:28pm)
  • John Sterling on Proof of Live – Ohio Meetup (May 22, 2025 @ 12:26pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!