We don’t know the monetary advantage that Republicans have over Democrats, because this sort of thing isn’t counted anymore. Say it’s 2:1.
[/QUOTE]
There are some pretty good guesses about what the monetary advantage is and they are putting somewhere between 7:1 and 9:1. The description of Mickey simply throwing money at any candidate that can catch it is pretty accurate
Do they? Or is it someone for whom $150K is found-in-the-couch kind of money?
-Joe
Only if, by “all practical purposes”, you mean “my fevered delusions”. As I’ve said repeatedly, I think Rachel botched this particular interview. Of course, you being a political shill and wanker for anything non-liberal, you’ll take one incident to excuse all others on ‘your side’. As the saying goes, both 2 and 100 are greater than 1, but they’re not equivalent. As any sensible person realizes.
For instance, see post #79 (thanks Face Intentionally Left Blank).
You said that you wanted politicians to address questions, and that smart politicians dodge them. So, presumably you want ding-a-lings to run for office.
Well, your wish is granted in this particular case.
Wtf are you babbling about? Have you RTFT?
The issue referred to is “selectively edit[ing] more recent quotes to give the impression Obama is saying exactly the opposite of his message.” She did not do that in this interview, nor has she ever done that at any time (of which I’m aware). In fact, from what I’ve seen, she will use airtime to make corrections for borderline trivialities that were, nonetheless, inaccurate.
Y’know, exactly the opposite of liars like Hannity.
Then why did he quote me? I didn’t accuse her of doing that.
Aha! no wonder he sounded familiar:
He is the same bastard of the bogus Oregon petition that many climate change deniers misuse to say there is no consensus on AGW:
Your quote was nested within emacnight’s post, which was who I was replying to. He replied to you, I replied to him. It’s a pretty straightforward and easy-to-follow system.
So just exactly who were you accusing of “equivalency of Maddow=Hannity” and “claiming victory” anyway, or were you tilting at windmills as blatantly as you appear to have been? Because I wasn’t claiming that, and I really don’t think emacknight was, and we are the only two people you quoted using the straightforward and easy-to-follow system.
Could be. I imagine that if you’re a Saudi oil sheik accustomed to writing ten million dollar checks to Bin Laden, tossing $150,000 at a global warming crank might not be that big a deal. At least the latter would be good for business. Of course there are other wealthy oil mavens as well.
There’s been some Maddow & Hannity comparisons in this thread. DJ Motorbike in particular did this, while also observing others having made the comparison in this thread:
I have now shown that ppl HAVE made the equivalence, and thus was not “tilting at windmills.” I still hold that such comparisons are invalid, for the reasons given by emacknight. As for the reason why I quoted emacknight’s message, I was building upon his statements and the links he provided.
Since he refused to say whether or not he still help those views (some from 15 years ago, some from more recent newsletters that he himself writes and publishes), there was no way for her or the audience to know whether or not they reinforced his currently held and pertinent views. She kept trying to ask him about his current views, he kept talking over her and accusing her of lying and smearing and mudslinging.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I saw too
Unlike MAGELLAN, I think proving you are a nut, is a campaign issue. If I had a politician I was backing that said that kind of nutty crap, I would be running to the voting exit. I doubt I would care much about who asked the questions.
He like O’Donnell, Paladino and Angle, should have driven any and all voters away by being certifiably nuts.