78 comments posted · 17 followers · following 0
You forgot this point:
3. Grim seems an unlikely character to be making a plagiarism charge against George Bush. Of all the other book authors she's got on hand, why would Arianna Huffington have Grim writing the smear?
I'm a constitutional conservative, not an ideologue. Regardless, if your primary background as an author had been in telling anecdotes of your drug exploits, would you expect to go after a former President with plagiarism charges and be taken seriously? Valid circumstances to ponder is all...
This was nothing short of stalking. If people in the Tea Party want to be taken seriously, they cannot allow others in the movement to behave as crazed stalkers. There's a difference between putting pressure on Congress members and STALKING. This was most definitely the latter. Unacceptable.
12 years ago @
Big Journalism -
I hope that more people on this forum engage in this discussion, and do so respectfully.
Like it or not, some of these points are vaild. I can't say that I agree with every single one of them, but most certainly I feel that if there is going to be scrutiny from the public when it comes to politics, it should apply to what ALL media is doing, not just certain networks.
Think in theoretical terms - would it bother you to see Keith Olbermann out campaigning with, say, Nancy Pelosi? Should it be OK for Hannity to do it for, say, Marco Rubio? Should both be permitted to do it? Should neither be permitted? And how about donations? How should those be viewed?
And how do we alleviate political corruption in the media while at the same time protecting free speech? Most on the left would push for government or non-profit/public media for this very reason. We should be discussing that idea. (Personally, I feel that has the potential to make it even *more* corrupt, but these are options that need to be debated as well.)
This is an age old problem that has existed from the very days when the first printed newspaper began endorsing political candidates. I'm always interested in reading thoughtful debate on the subject. I hope people here will engage on it.
Without those Lawrence O'Donnell moments, Democrats who think it's still the party of their grandparents would be none the wiser. Frankly, he did me a favor - because I'm tired of trying to convince the last few old school Dems I know that the Lawrence O'Donnell's really do exist.
12 years ago @
Big Journalism -
Why no mention of GE, MSNBC's parent company, which has far outpaced FOX in its contributions and lobbying?
Look, in the end, making a political donation is exercising your free speech. That needs to be protected. It seems logical to pass a law saying "no donations" for media and corporations, but then where does one draw the line then? First newspaper and TV employees. Then Internet employees? Bloggers? Teachers and professors? How about rock singers like Bono?
On the other hand, requiring public disclosure sounds like a fair compromise. Until you start thinking about the unintended consequences. You start publishing the home addresses of every TV and radio personality who donates money and you've got a major privacy infringement issue (not to mention security). It's the same issue that comes up for debate every time we get into campaign finance reform and 527 groups.
It's not that simple an argument. Above all, the right to free speech (and the right to privacy) need to be protected. How to work around that is the dilemma.
PS - when submitting a donation, "homemaker" is one of the primary generic selections available for someone who does not work. Similar general selections are "Retired" and "Self-Employed". Because a) not everyone works, and b) not everyone works for another company. Just clarifying, so others don't think that "homemaker" is some nefarious, shady term to be suspicious of...