• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

D.N.C. Spokesman’s Former Group Didn’t Disclose Donors Either

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Brad Woodhouse, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, is the latest ally of President Obama to go after the dangers of undisclosed money in the political process. In a letter sent yesterday to editorial board members at news organizations across the country, Mr. Woodhouse excoriated the collection and use of the money in the current elections. “Anonymous special interests and unnamed corporations are pouring tens of millions of dollars into electoral politics this fall, money that has the potential to tip the scales in close races across the country,” Mr. Woodhouse wrote in the letter. He lamented the “pernicious effects of secret, special interest money.”

But just a couple of years back, Mr. Woodhouse was the president of a political organization that took donations without disclosing the identities of the donors. Mr. Woodhouse was president of Americans United for Change, a liberal group that says its mission has been to challenge “the far-right conservative voices and ideas that for too long have been mistaken for mainstream American values.”

D.N.C. Spokesman's Former Group Didn't Disclose Donors Either - NYTimes.com

Once again, nothing about the current political situation is new. The same people are just doing the same things they always do.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
D.N.C. Spokesman's Former Group Didn't Disclose Donors Either - NYTimes.com

Once again, nothing about the current political situation is new. The same people are just doing the same things they always do.
It's their last straw in an election that isn't about Cult, Text Messages, or one of their trick wabbits. Not even the press can dent the nationwide express train ripping through the nation... to get Government Off Our Backs.

There is nothing like a sober, awakened, and motivated electorate to scare the bejeezuz out of the left. Leftists are running out of straws, and they've exhausted their supply of wabbits. No worries my leftist buddies, the beginning of the end of our national nightmare will soon be reality.

.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
D.N.C. Spokesman's Former Group Didn't Disclose Donors Either - NYTimes.com

Once again, nothing about the current political situation is new. The same people are just doing the same things they always do.

Not exactly, from your link:

Mr. Woodhouse said the comparison was unfair. He said Americans United for Change did not run the same kind of political advertising that Crossroads GPS and the other conservative groups were financing.

“We didn’t do any advertising that mentioned or attacked candidates like the kind Karl Rove is running during the election — so we didn’t do the type of ads that we are highlighting here,” Mr. Woodhouse said Friday.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thanks for biting.

A commercial aired by Woodhouse's group. Yea, that definitely didn't mention or attack anyone.

Were they baseless lies, Right?

Please note what I quoted above:

“We didn’t do any advertising that mentioned or attacked candidates like the kind Karl Rove is running during the election — so we didn’t do the type of ads that we are highlighting here,” Mr. Woodhouse said Friday.

I am assuming Mr. Woodhouse meant the ads were in fact based upon the truth.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thanks for biting.

99209976.jpg
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Were they baseless lies, Right?

Please note what I quoted above:

I am assuming Mr. Woodhouse meant the ads were in fact based upon the truth.

Ah, so if the ads that the CoC is running are not factually inaccurate, you don't have any problem with them? You're not opposed to groups refusing to disclose their donors, you just don't like it when they don't tell the truth? Seems plausible.

If you're that intent on finding a way to justify what this guy said/did rather than simply admitting "yea, it sounds like both sides play politics," then I can add this to the long list of things that it's not worth discussing with you.
 
Last edited:

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ah, so if the ads that the CoC is running are not factually inaccurate, you don't have any problem with them? You're not opposed to groups refusing to disclose their donors, you just don't like it when they don't tell the truth? Seems plausible.

If you're that intent on finding a way to justify what this guy said/did rather than simply admitting "yea, it sounds like both sides play politics," then I can add this to the long list of things that it's not worth discussing with you.

My point boils down to this. If a corporation or union wants to run ads for or against a candidate, the public has the right to know who paying for the ads. I believe in sunlight whether it's on the left or right. If XYZ corporation runs an ad against pbrauer, then the XYZ Corp. needs to take responsibility for it. I think we know XYZ doesn't want to be known as the sponsor because they might lose business from the public.

Tell me was Justice Alito correct during the SOTU message?

 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
My point boils down to this. If a corporation or union wants to run ads for or against a candidate, the public has the right to know who paying for the ads.

And the Chamber puts its name on the ads, just like everyone else (including Woodhouse's group). Glad we could clear that up.

I believe in sunlight whether it's on the left or right.

So why are you attacking the Chamber and defending Woodhouse's group? You're just another partisan, denouncing those who you disagree with and defending those who you support.

Tell me was Justice Alito correct during the SOTU message?

Yes, he was absolutely correct.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...times-greenhouse-alito-right-obama-wrong.html

Alito Was Right | Foreign Policy
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,767
Reaction score
3,386
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My point boils down to this. If a corporation or union wants to run ads for or against a candidate, the public has the right to know who paying for the ads. I believe in sunlight whether it's on the left or right. If XYZ corporation runs an ad against pbrauer, then the XYZ Corp. needs to take responsibility for it. I think we know XYZ doesn't want to be known as the sponsor because they might lose business from the public.

Tell me was Justice Alito correct during the SOTU message?


I do not recall many ads stating they were from a union. Doesn't this sound like a 21st century version of McCarthyism. These type of political attacks should give pause to any true liberal versus.

Liberalism sounds a lot different than the liberalism I grew uo with.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Watch the video again, Justice Alito starts shaking his head and saying "not true" when the President says "open the flood gates to the special interests" and before he says "including foreign corporations." Notice the video that Grim posted (but incorrectly formatted) of Sean Hannity / Sarah Palin where that part was purposely cropped out by Sean Hannity.

Here is the video that Grim posted:


Here is the full version:


Does the Citizens United decision "open the flood gates to special interests" or doesn't it? Was Justice Alito absolutely correct?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Watch the video again, Justice Alito starts shaking his head and saying "not true" when the President says "open the flood gates to the special interests" and before he says "including foreign corporations." Notice the video that Grim posted (but incorrectly formatted) of Sean Hannity / Sarah Palin where that part was purposely cropped out by Sean Hannity.

Does the Citizens United decision "open the flood gates to special interests" or doesn't it? Was Justice Alito absolutely correct?

Yes, he was. I've explained this probably 30 times in as many threads over the past year. If you care to learn more, find one of the 800 post threads on Citizens United and start reading.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm trying to understand all this campaign financing stuff and why you have to disclose sometimes and not others etc.
I watched State of the Union.(CNN) They showed a Pro-Israel ad against Sestack. When asked if the guy would disclose who the donors were he said no, it's not required if the ad is about issues. I can see why someone wouldn't want to be identified as the donor of such an ad. If everything had to be disclosed, I think that would be stifling free speech. They also mentioned if Dems were donors to the ad they would want that kept secret for obvious reasons.
He also said if it was an attack ad that said don't vote for so-and so and not on issues it would have to be disclosed. But since that ad mentioned Sestack, but didn't come out and say don't vote for him it didn't have to be disclosed. It's all very confusing.

As far as this election goes, I think the dems are just being big babies and grasping at straws. Axelrod said Karl Rove was going to pump 50 mil. in before the end of the election stating that was some kind of unheard of thing. Then I find out the Dems plan on pumping in 60 mil.
If they keep up the attacks on disclosures I hope they are forced to disclose the record breaking donations Obama raised in 2008 and force those to be disclosed.
The Dems aren't getting the money this time because people are fed up with them. Even George Soros is sitting this one out.
 
Top Bottom