Top GOP donor threatens to cut off funds if Republicans don't do something about assault weapons in this country.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

A prominent Republican political donor demanded on Saturday that the party pass legislation to restrict access to guns, and vowed not to contribute to any candidates or electioneering groups that did not support a ban on the sale of military-style firearms to civilians. 

Al Hoffman Jr., a Florida-based real estate developer who was a leading fund-raiser for George W. Bush’s campaigns, said he would seek to marshal support among other Republican political donors for a renewed assault weapons ban. 

“For how many years now have we been doing this — having these experiences of terrorism, mass killings — and how many years has it been that nothing’s been done?” Mr. Hoffman said in an interview. “It’s the end of the road for me.” 

Mr. Hoffman announced his ultimatum in an email to half a dozen Republican leaders, including Jeb Bush and Gov. Rick Scott of Florida. He wrote in the email that he would not give money to Mr. Scott, who is considering a campaign for the Senate in 2018, or other Florida Republicans he has backed in the past, including Representative Brian Mast, if they did not support new gun legislation. 

“I will not write another check unless they all support a ban on assault weapons,” he wrote. “Enough is enough!”

You know if Mr. Hoffman can get enough of his fellow GOP donors to agree with him, this might be the thing that starts a real change in this country.

It would also help if people cancelled their NRA memberships until they started lobbying for better laws to control access to these military style weapons as well. 

Just a thought.

The Dallas Morning News exposes the many ways that the Russians funneled money to the Donald Trump and many other GOP campaigns.

Explore for yourself the tangled web of Russian money that warrant special investigator Robert Mueller’s attention, according to Ruth May 12/12 https://t.co/EF9aFHpl0F pic.twitter.com/I81Hj7XYoT

— Dallas Morning News (@dallasnews) December 15, 2017

Courtesy of The Dallas Morning News:  

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team probes deeper into potential collusion between Trump officials and representatives of the Russian government, investigators are taking a closer look at political contributions made by U.S. citizens with close ties to Russia. 

Buried in the campaign finance reports available to the public are some troubling connections between a group of wealthy donors with ties to Russia and their political contributions to President Donald Trump and a number of top Republican leaders. And thanks to changes in campaign finance laws, the political contributions are legal. We have allowed our campaign finance laws to become a strategic threat to our country.

This is a really deep dive and there is really no way for me to effectively paraphrase it here on IM, so you are going to have to visit the link and read it for yourself.

When you finish you will realize just how deep this whole thing goes, as well as why certain Republican politicians are working so hard to provide cover for Donald Trump and fighting the Mueller investigation.

Breitbart loses German advertisers as the site makes plans to impact the elections in that country.

Courtesy of the LA Times: 

After recent decisions by companies such as the Kellogg Co. and Allstate to pull their ads, a number of German companies have followed suit, including BMW, Deutsche Telekom and the restaurant chain Vapiano. 

Deutsche Telekom is the parent company of wireless carrier T-Mobile. 

A spokesman for BMW of North America said that the carmaker doesn’t advertise on Breitbart directly and only individuals who specifically expressed an interest in the brand and then visited the Breitbart site would have received an ad from BMW. 

“We continuously review sites where individually targeted ads are available and Breitbart is no longer among them,” the company said in a statement. 

Deutsche Telekom said in a separate statement that “we have had our advertising removed from [Breitbart] and have block listed them, to ensure that no further Deutsche Telekom ads appear there. Deutsche Telekom stands for values such as tolerance and openness and we do not condone any discriminatory acts or comments.”

Breitbart has recently suggested that they will be expanding into Germany, and have already written multiple posts critical of Chancellor Merkel.

However good this news might seem, I recently learned that Breitbart is actually supported by some wealthy right wing donors, and does not rely solely on advertising dollars:  

Breitbart refuses to release revenue figures, although pundits suspect that its advertising streams are not big enough to sustain its current operations in America and Britain. It is financed by private backers, notably Robert Mercer, a hedge-fund billionaire and a big donor to Mr Trump’s campaign, who reportedly invested $10m in the site a few years ago. Yet compared with traditional media, its overheads are small: a few opinionated journalists, some interns and readers who fill up the comments page at no extra cost. 

Breitbart’s ad revenues, such as they are, could prove volatile. Its content is frequently toxic: its comment section is a platform for members of far-right hate groups to rail against immigration and Jews.

This means that Breitbart is not hampered by any potential financial concerns as they spread hate, racism, and Islamophobia at will.

So long as they please their wealthy benefactors there is no down side to attacking liberals in this country or others, and despite their new ties to the president elect there are no signs that they intend to change their tactics one little bit.

In fact there is every indication that they plan to become even more aggressive in attacking politicians like Angela Merkel, and promoting politicians more in line with their world view.

Is anybody else having flashes from "The Boys From Brazil?"

Republican insiders have a message for Donald Trump: Get out!

Courtesy of Politico:

Amid widespread chatter that Donald Trump could drop out of the presidential race before Election Day, Republican insiders in key battleground states have a message for The Donald: Get out. 

That’s according to The POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states. The majority of GOP insiders, 70 percent, said they want Trump to drop out of the race and be replaced by another Republican candidate — with many citing Trump’s drag on Republicans in down-ballot races. But those insiders still think it’s a long-shot Trump would actually end his campaign and be replaced by another GOP candidate. 

“I’d rather take our chances with nearly anyone else than continue with this certain loser who will likely cost the Senate and much more,” said a New Hampshire Republican — who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously. 

“The effect Trump is having on down-ballot races has the potential to be devastating in November,” added a Florida Republican. “His negative image among Hispanics, women and independents is something that could be devastating to Republicans. Trump’s divisive rhetoric to the Hispanic community at large has the potential to be devastating for years to come.” 

Trump has given no indication that he’s considering quitting, and his campaign insists his perseverance is one of his best attributes. But two network reports recently suggested senior GOP leaders were eyeing how that process would work, just in case. 

A Trump exit from the race after he’s been formally nominated would trigger a rarely used vacancy rule in the national Republican Party’s rulebook. That rule empowers the Republican National Committee — a 168-member panel that includes three GOP leaders from every state and territory — to select a replacement. The RNC is also authorized to reconvene the national convention, which would be all but logistically impossible.

In other news we are hearing that prominent GOP donors are privately urging others like themselves to start backing Clinton and leave Trump high and dry:

Groups of wealthy Republicans unhappy with Donald Trump have been privately courting prominent peers to join them in backing Democrat Hillary Clinton’s U.S. presidential bid, several people involved in the effort told Reuters. 

They say they are seeking money and endorsements from other Republicans disillusioned by Trump, their party’s candidate for the Nov. 8 presidential election. Some have received encouragement from Clinton and members of her campaign staff. 

“I made the decision that I wouldn’t be able to look at my grandkids if I voted for Trump,” said Dan Webb, a former federal prosecutor and a self-described “Republican for decades” working to win over prominent Republican business people in Chicago.

Okay so I have kind of been going back and forth on this for some time.

Would we prefer that the GOP force Trump out of the race, thereby embarrassing him and disenfranchising millions of his supporters, possibly for all time?

Or is it better to watch him get crushed in the general election by Hillary Clinton, and watch his inevitable public meltdown?

Literally both of these scenarios are disastrous for the Republican party AND Donald Trump.

The only question is which one would be more satisfying for the Democrats, and which one causes the most harm to the Republican party?

What do you think?

Over one quarter of donors to Sanders campaign are unemployed.

Courtesy of the LA Times:

“ Bernie Sanders is running on a platform to lift up the have-nots and to improve the system of government we have, so that no one will ever be left behind. ”

"No one will ever be left behind." That quote came from one of Sanders' small dollar donors, and it seems to reflect the point of view that a lot of his supporters have about what he can accomplish as President.

But that is based on fantasy.

President Obama has made improving the jobs market his main focus for the entire seven and a half years he has been in office, and he has by all accounts done an amazing job. But obviously there are still those "left behind."

How in the hell do these Sanders supporters believe that he can accomplish more?

And that is only one of a number of promises that Sanders would have absolutely no way of keeping. 

For fuck's sake he is a politician, not the freaking Wizard of Oz.

If elected he would run into exactly the same road blocks that confronted President Obama, and I would argue even more since working with a self identified socialist would be a death sentence to the career of any conservative, and a number of liberals in purple states as well.

In my opinion these promises by Bernie Sanders are irresponsible and are taking advantage of the politically naive and desperate.

And if a quarter of his donors are unemployed then exactly where is the money they are sending Bernie Sanders coming from?

From the parents of college kids? From unemployment benefits?

In other words is the money being taken from older people, possibly Hillary supporters, under false pretenses? Or is it coming from government funds provided to feed and clothe these individuals which is instead going into the pocket of Bernie and Jane Sanders?

And if these donors are literally giving their last cent for a promise that will simply never come, just how desperate is that making them.

The answer, very desperate: 

Call them Hillary’s home-state haters. 

A group of rabble-rousing Bernie Sanders supporters from New York is headed for the Democratic National Convention next month as hand-picked, at-large delegates -- and they’re threatening to make trouble for Hillary Clinton at the very moment she hopes to make history as the first female nominee of either party and unite Democrats for the coming battle with Donald Trump. Story Continued Below 

The disgruntled Sanders delegation, heading to Philadelphia with deep reservations about Clinton’s brand of center-left pragmatism, serves as a reminder of how contentious the four-day meeting could become, and a warning to Democrats of the importance of bringing Sanders happily into the fold. 

Some 20,000 protesters are reportedly planning anti-Clinton protests outside of the convention hall. But interviews with members of Sanders’ New York delegation reveal that supporters of the Vermont senator are also considering bringing some of those protests inside the Wells Fargo Center itself — raising the prospect of an embarrassing spectacle on prime-time TV. 

So fueled by frustration that the false promises of Bernie Sanders will not materialize these misguided young people are going to lash out at the only political party working to give them what they want.

That is what the Bernie Sanders campaign has wrought, that and nothing more.

Hillary Clinton supporter David Brock tells donors that he has assembled enough opposition research to “knock Trump Tower down to the sub-basement.”

Courtesy of Politico:  

David Brock, in a Monday night speech to some of the biggest liberal donors in the country, boasted that his researchers had assembled a trove of opposition research on Donald Trump that Democrats could use to “knock Trump Tower down to the sub-basement.” 

Speaking at a reception on the sidelines of the annual spring meeting of the Democracy Alliance liberal donor club at Santa Monica’s tony Fairmont Hotel, Brock said that Trump “was not properly vetted by his rivals — or by the press” during the Republican presidential primary.

But Brock, who is a leading supporter of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, said that his non-profit opposition research outfit American Bridge started researching Trump last July, and has unearthed some damning stuff. 

Brock claims that the media and Trump's opponents did a poor job of vetting him and that he kept mum on the information he found so that it could not be used by any of the other GOP contenders against Trump before he secured the nomination.

David Brock is known for being a fundraiser, a political operative, and for founding Media Matters of America, a watchdog group that regularly fact checks Right Wing politicians.

Brock is also known for playing hard ball and of course that is exactly what is going to be required to deal with Trump in the presidential election.

President Obama tells Democratic donors that Bernie Sander's campaign is about done and soon they will need to back Hillary.

Courtesy of New York Times:  

In unusually candid remarks, President Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors last Friday that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont was nearing the point at which his campaign against Hillary Clinton would end, and that the party must soon come together to back her. 

Mr. Obama acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton was perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate, and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic. 

But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush — whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 — was once praised for his authenticity. 

Mr. Obama made the remarks after reporters had left a fund-raising event in Austin, Tex., for the Democratic National Committee. The comments were described by three people in the room for the event, all of whom were granted anonymity to describe a candid moment with the president. The comments were later confirmed by a White House official.

President Obama is nothing if not a pragmatist, and he clearly sees that the writing is on the wall here. 

Reports are that the President and his top aides have been strategizing as to how to help the Democratic candidate win this next election, which I think is what most of us hope he will do.

I also kind of doubt that this information was leaked accidentally, and feel that Obama is sending a subtle message that it is time to start getting serious about the 2016 election.

If you wondered what Jeb Bush spent that 130 million on, wonder no more.

This comes courtesy of the New York Times:

Positive Advertising: $84 Million

Well that was money clearly well spent.   

Clubbing: $94,100 

Instead of spending last winter on the hustings of Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Bush held off, using the first half of 2015 to raise money in places like New York, Chicago, Texas and Florida. His goal: Raise enough money for a super PAC to scare other candidates — especially those with a similar political profile — out of the race.Over the entire campaign, Mr. Bush’s team racked up tens of thousands of dollars in dinner and event tabs at the Yale Club, the Union League Club of Chicago, Nantucket’s Westmore Club, and more than two dozen other haunts of the well heeled and racquetball-inclined.

Yep another solid tactic.

Valets: $15,800

Well gee, of course you cannot have rich bigwigs parking their own cars.

People: $8.3 Million 

As Mr. Bush’s campaign matured, he and the group supporting him built one of the largest organizations of any candidate in either party, banking that his superior fund-raising would sustain his high overhead costs, which in turn would yield him wins or near-wins in states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where organizing is critical.

Man if only other candidates had thought this far ahead and been this organized. Then they could have dropped out of the race by now as well.

Wait.....

Branding: $88,387 

Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Mr. Bush, and then his campaign directly, retained 30 Point Strategies, a public relations company in Bethesda, Md., specializing in “thought leadership” and “brand journalism,” according to the firm’s website. But in the end, the most lasting label of Mr. Bush was supplied by Mr. Trump: “low energy.”

And the thing that must really hurt is that Trump stuck that label on Jeb! using virtually no money whatsoever. He just kept saying it in debates and stump speeches, and tweeted it a few times.  

Vegas, Baby: $48,544 

Mr. Bush and his staff racked up sizable travel bills, including $3.3 million in airfare and hundreds of thousands of dollars at hotels, ranging from a Best Western in Phoenix to the Biltmore in Coral Gables, Fla. But what stands out is the Bush team’s taste for the Vegas Strip, where aides and allies patronized the Bellagio, the Wynn and the Venetian, owned by Sheldon Adelson, the Republican megadonor.

You know Vegas is where so many dreams go to die.

The Consultants: $10 Million 

A well-funded candidate tends to attract hordes of consultants, and Mr. Bush had plenty. All told, his team paid consulting fees to around 140 different companies or individuals, including senior campaign staff members, opposition research firms, and get-out-the-vote operatives in Iowa and South Carolina. 

And here we thought that Sarah Palin wasted too much money on consultants, with no real return on that investment.

And finally.

Pizza! At a whopping $4,837.

As his fortunes declined this winter, Mr. Bush sharply pared back employees’ salaries and consulting fees, even laying off some campaign staff members to bring down costs. But let it never be said that Mr. Bush allowed his team to go hungry. His campaign and super PAC were particularly fond of the pizza, whether from Domino’s or from Pizza Ranch, the Iowa chain.

Well hey, at least he fed people.

Look at that. 130 million dollars spent and he was never able to even break into the top three.

Just goes to show that no matter how much money you spend, you can never spend enough to make people forget that your brother damn near destroyed the country.

Supreme Court lays the smackdown on the anti-abortion group that created those doctored anti-Planned Parenthood videos.

Uh oh.

Courtesy of the LA Times:  

The Supreme Court on Friday denied an emergency appeal from the California-based antiabortion group behind the secretly recorded videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue recovery. 

The group, known as the Center for Medical Progress, had filed an emergency appeal asking the high court to allow it to keep its list of key donors and supporters confidential. 

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, who oversees appeals from California, turned down the request. 

The center is fighting a lawsuit from the National Abortion Federation, which alleges the center's members got into federation meetings by lying about themselves and falsely promising not to reveal what transpired.

Now why do I think that the donors to this group REALLY do not want their names to be made public? 

I think I am really going to enjoy watching this case move forward.

GOP donors so concerned about the possibility of a Trump nomination that some are actually contemplating a vote for Hillary.

Courtesy of The Hill:  

When asked who he would vote for if the presidential race comes down to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the former mayor of Los Angeles and a longtime Republican establishment figure, Dick Riordan, says: "I would probably go find a deserted island."

 "I think Hillary is disgusting," said Riordan, a wealthy investor who has exceeded $500,000 in political donations throughout his career. "

And I think Trump is crazy," Riordan added in a telephone interview Monday. 

Riordan is not alone. In conversations over the past month, GOP establishment donors have confided to The Hill that for the first time in recent memory, they find themselves contemplating not supporting a Republican nominee for president. 

Most, however, still believe that Trump will flame out before they have to face that decision. 

According to one story some donors were even considering the unthinkable:  

A story that circulated after the lunch was that the donors engaged in a hypothetical question: "If it was Donald Trump running against Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?" 

One version has it that most of the Republicans at the table put their hands up for Clinton.

That version of events was quickly refuted of course because, you know, damage control.

However even if donors are starting to panic, Trump's base is letting NOTHING dissuade them from supporting the big orange blowhard.

Female supporter: "Don't try to screw this up. Don't try to skew it. You're not going to convince me otherwise."

I think that about sums it up.

These are the low hanging fruit, the people who are driven by ideology and care nothing for facts or honesty.

And now you know where all of those Sarah Palin supporters ended up.

Bernie Sanders may be the dream candidate for liberals.

Courtesy of CNN:  

Bernie Sanders says he won't launch a Super PAC and doesn't want billionaires to bankroll his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. 

The Vermont senator who entered the 2016 race for the White House on Thursday told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in his first interview as a candidate that he'll instead look to small-dollar individual donors. 

And he lambasted the growing influence that major donors like Charles and David Koch on the right and Tom Steyer on the left now have on the political process. 

"Frankly, it is vulgar to me that we're having a war of billionaires," Sanders said. 

Asked whether he would bless a wealthy donor's support for a pro-Sanders Super PAC, he said: "No."

"Frankly it is vulgar to me that we're having a war of billionaires." 

Call me crazy but I think Bernie Sanders is trying to seduce me.

I mean he keeps whispering these sweet honeyed words into my ear, and acting all righteous and as if he were an actual honest to goodness trustworthy politician.

I swear it's enough to make me want to toss away all logic and run off with him to eventual electoral defeat.

I feel a little like those crazy college kids who threw their damp boxer shorts at Ron Paul, except for the fact that Bernie's not a crazy person.

And by the way I am far from alone.

Sander's campaign managed to raise 1.5 million in just 24 hours.

I might need to have somebody talk me down, before I end up voting for this guy in the primary.

And by the way, it might be too late for that talk.

Bill Maher calls Republicans who deny climate change to keep donations flowing "prostitutes." Which personally I think is an insult to prostitutes everywhere.

Courtesy of Mediaite: 

Bill Maher ended his show tonight  (Actually last night.) by going after Republican “zombie lies” on the environment and basically calling them “prostitutes” for denying climate change just to satisfy donors. 

He ripped into candidates like Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, and Ted Cruz for raising serious questions about established science on climate change, before saying the whole thing was “never about facts to begin with.”

I loved this:

" In 2013 an MIT professor studies almost 11,000 peered reviewed articles about climate change. And there were only two dissenters. So yes, there is a scientific community that doubts climate change. But it could fit on a motorcycle."

I think that is one of the best metaphors I have ever heard to explain just how vast and overwhelming the research is that supports the fact of climate change, and that the change is the fault of man.

The sad fact is we no longer have the luxury of arguing about this anymore, we have to act.

And the even sadder fact is that we have spent so much time arguing, that what we do now will have limited impact on reversing the damage that we have already caused.

In what may be the first time in American political history, Jeb Bush is asking donors to give him LESS money.

"Look I just want to swim in a pool of money piled this high. I'm not greedy."

Courtesy of the Washington Post: 

An unusual request has gone out to wealthy donors writing large checks to support former Florida governor Jeb Bush: Please don’t give more than $1 million right away. 

The requested limit, confirmed by multiple people familiar with the amount, may mark the first time that a presidential hopeful has sought to hold off supporters from contributing too much money. 

The move reflects concerns among Bush advisers that accepting massive sums from a handful of uber-rich supporters could fuel a perception that the former governor is in their debt. The effort is also driven by a desire to build as broad a pool of donors as possible among wealthier contributors. 

So even as Bush (R) is headlining a series of high-dollar events for a super PAC backing his bid, fundraisers have been instructed not to ask donors to give more than $1 million per person this quarter.

So Bush is concerned that taking more than a million dollars, might give people the impression that he is in these donor's debt?  But anything less than a million, means he owes them nothing?

Interesting thought process.

Look we all know who is going to be pulling Jebbie's strings, and it makes no difference if they give less than a million dollars or not.

Jeb Bush is a big business sycophant and he will jump through whatever flaming hoops they hold up for him.

Electing Jeb Bush guarantees a bad economy, ultra conservative Supreme Court appointees, and more likely than not another unnecessary war. 

And in order to stop him, and his truckloads of money, we need Hillary Clinton.

Like it, or not.

PAC supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy raises two million in third quarter. Has raised over ten million since formation in 2013.

Courtesy of MSNBC:  

Ready for Hillary, the quasi-official Clinton shadow campaign PAC, took in more than $2 million in the third quarter of the year, according to the group. That’s slightly less than the previous quarter as the group winds down its activities in anticipation of an official Clinton campaign launch. 

The group has raised more than $10.25 million since it formed in early 2013, and raked in $2.5 million in the previous quarter. 

Continuing to expand its grassroots fundraising base, Ready for Hillary brought more than 21,000 new donors into the fold over the past three months. Of its more than 38,000 contributions during the quarter, 98% were for less than $100. The average contribution was $52.

I find that to be a rather incredible level of grassroots support for a candidate who has yet to even commit to a run in 2016.

If free speech and money really were the same thing, like the Republicans seem to want us to believe, then there would be an almost deafening roar of "Hillary in 2016" drowning out all of the other political talk right now.

By the way, and I know this is not fair, but compare the information above with the last quarter report from the PAC supporting the best known female politician from that other party.

(I know, I'm a stinker.)

Establishment Republicans reaching out to donors for help in electing Congressmen who will actually do their jobs instead of allowing more of "the crazies" to get elected.

Courtesy of Fortune:  

Back on May 20, the National Republican Congressional Committee — the House Republicans’ campaign arm — announced it was launching a “Drive to 245,” a Babe Ruthian exercise in shot calling that implied the party would net an additional 11 seats in the November midterms. 

Twenty-five days out from the elections, that remains an uncertain proposition. Republicans are sure to pad their majority, though gains in the single digits look more likely. As Greg Walden, the Oregon Republican who runs the NRCC, tells Fortune, “It is attainable, but it’s a pretty high goal.” 

But the Republican boast was never really meant to nail the balloting results. Instead, it was a clever blend of hype and hope served up to major donors about what could follow the election: For GOP benefactors in New York, Washington and beyond who’re past tired of self-destructive antics by Republicans reactionaries, the party tailored the push to conjure the dream of a reinvigorated Speaker John Boehner. Given the room, he could stiff-arm the tiny, troublesome right flank that nearly pitched the country into a debt default three years ago and generally made major headaches out of otherwise simple chores. One Republican operative spells out the subtext of the pitch to the corporate pragmatists the GOP is hitting up for campaign cash: “We want to give Boehner a governable majority so the crazies you hate will be irrelevant.”

Republican leaders can’t call elected representatives on their own team “crazies,” but they can make a broader case. “Growing the majority means we’ve got a bigger pool to draw from to go do the work of the country,” Walden says. 

I think that in many of the primaries we have already seen this strategy at work. Which is why seemingly sane Republicans have been easily beating challengers backed by the likes of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin.

Personally I would simply prefer more Democrats be elected, but I have to say that even more Republicans who are willing to compromise and move this country forward rather than spend their time obstructing progress and attempting please the paint chip eaters, would be a welcome change.

I think it is beyond obvious that SOMETHING needs to change. And sooner rather than later.

Palin on the attack again. This time she does not take aim at the President, or even Democrats however, THIS time she throws her rhetorical bombs at the Grand Old Party itself.

This showed up a little late last night in my e-mail inbox.

It is another Breitbart article, which purports to have interviewed Palin about an article that appeared earlier in the Daily Beast.

Here are the pertinent portions:

Palin told Breitbart News that these establishment financiers cannot relate to the average American worker and are throwing a "fit" because Wall Street knows they are in a whole new ballgame where their influence is diminishing. 

Palin was responding to an article by David Freilander in Thursday's Daily Beast in which prominent Republican establishment financiers showed disdain for the conservative grassroots while being unable to identify exactly what a "precinct captain" is. 

Palin, who started her political career on the local level as an outsider before eventually challenging the GOP establishment in Alaska to become governor, said that the "GOP high roller machine can’t win elections with their cash anymore." 

"If they could, all the money they threw at Romney would have paid off," Palin said, referring to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's inability to galvanize the blue-collar conservative base during the 2012 presidential election. "It’s the average American – the grassroots Tea Party patriot with enthusiasm and boots on the ground – who wins elections": So I say call these guys out and expose the fact that they no longer control any conservative movement because they’re not the voice of the people. See, some of these Wall Street guys basically want to use the GOP for three things: They want low taxes for themselves; they want lots of cheap foreign labor (aka blanket amnesty); and they want to be safe (though most won’t send their own kids to fight our wars, they don’t want anyone blowing up buildings in Manhattan; so they’re all for sending our sons and daughters to whatever foreign hell hole beckons to make sure the bad guys stay off our soil)." 

Palin, the avatar of the Tea Party movement whom the Republican establishment has tried to eviscerate and whose endorsement former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint (R) said had the most influence in Republican primaries, was not finished excoriating the establishment financiers who were berating the Tea Party: 

"Ask yourself if most of them really care about America’s industrial base or can even relate to the American worker and our values. The particular fat cats who are so often used as anonymous sources to trash the grassroots see this latest Tea Party effort to keep essential government open as just a distraction. They’re throwing a bit of a fit because this is a whole new, needed ballgame where their money can’t buy elections anymore."

You may have picked up on the fact that these answers seem a little too coherent for Palin, which means they undoubtedly sent her the questions, and then received a ghostwritten response by e-mail.

In the article which seems to have angered those over at the defunct Breitbart.com, and possibly Palin's ghostwriter as well, it claims that during this meeting between wealthy Republican donors and Rep. Greg Walden, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the donors did not understand what a "precinct captain" was, however it is not their lack of knowledge concerning political ground tactics that so angered the Right Wing, and the Grizzled Mama.

It is this:

It is unlikely that the gilded power brokers in the Republican Party are likely to join their local county political club any time soon, but as the stock market wobbles amid the government shutdown and the continued demand for an Obamacare delay, a number of GOP donors are wondering if it is time for a little outside counter-pressure to sap the Tea Party of some of its energy. To be clear, none are considering joining the Democrats, and they find plenty of fault with President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The deficit, taxes, and regulation remain top concerns. But several top GOP donors say figuring out a way to “break the fever”—as Obama once put it—or at least keep their fellow party members from damaging the economy any further has become Topic A in their social set.

Essentially the gist of the Daily Beast's article is that GOP donors are tiered of watching the Republican party get dragged around by their nutsack by a bunch of poorly educated idiots, who seem determined to destroy the country in the name of insane ideological viewpoints.  

And speaking of poorly educated idiots, this was the final word from Palin, or her ghostwriter, on the article: 

Palin told Breitbart News that "the day the GOP machine abandons the grassroots patriot – the heart and soul of the party who actually gets people elected – is the day the GOP elephant is extinct." 

"This keeps up and I’m not sticking around to watch it happen," Palin said. 

Yeah, well as we know "sticking around" is not exactly a Sarah Palin strong point.

However I can only imagine the huge sigh of relief that will come from the Republican party once this ill manner, out of control, parasite finally detaches from them and swims off to cause havoc under the banner of somebody elses's political organization.

If you thought John Boehner was drinking celebratory cocktails before....

P.S. Another thing about this Breitbart article which caught my eye is that they get the name of the Daily Beast's journalist completely wrong. They refer to him as " David Freilander" when in fact his name is "David Freedlander." You know when your "journalism" is this sloppy, it is a little hard to give you any credibility.

SarahPAC contributors don't care how Palin spends their money. What a coincidence, she doesn't care how she spends it either!

"Give me your tired, your wretched masses yearning to be free, but keep the poor, they have no donations to give. So screw them"

Courtesy of The Daily Beast:

Over the first half of 2013, SarahPAC took in $460,000, but spent more than $495,000. Despite its stated purpose of supporting like-minded candidates, it donated to only one—giving $5,000 to Jason Smith, a conservative Republican backed by the NRA and pro-life groups who won a special election in Missouri’s Eighth Congressional District in June by a margin of 67–27. 

In contrast, the group spent almost $484,000 on fundraising, research, speechwriting, and high-end travel. This is a comedown from the 2012 cycle, when SarahPAC raised eyebrows for spending more than $4.8 million on consultants while doling out $298,500 to candidates. 

The people funding Sarah Palin’s lifestyle and entourage were primarily small donors. Keep in mind that the Federal Election Commission requires only that campaigns and political groups report the names of those who give more than $200 in what are known as itemized donations. Small donors, of less than $200, are grouped together in un-itemized donations. Over 75 percent of SarahPAC’s donations—$341,556 out of a total of $446,880—were un-itemized. And the solicitations for small donors helped line the pockets of the consultants in charge of the effort. In fact, SarahPAC’s biggest operating expenditure was spending $87,148 on direct-mail firm HSP Direct, on fundraising. 

The Daily Beast reached out to a number of SarahPAC contributors to ask how they felt about their hard-earned money being spent primarily on consultants. “I trust her judgment and her record,” said Ronald Shuster of Hatboro, Pennsylvania, who gave $2,013 to the group. Sandra Dyberg of Vacaville, California, who gave $201.60 to SarahPAC, said she felt confident in Palin’s hiring decisions. “The consultants that she uses are good consultants,” she said. “I’ve done research on them.” No doubt.

The consultants she uses are "good consultants?" Do they mean these consultants?

The biggest individual beneficiary of Palin’s largesse was SarahPAC’s treasurer, Timothy Crawford, who made $80,500 as consultant for fundraising and compliance. Others who profited off the group include Rebecca Mansour, the aspiring screenwriter behind the website Conservatives4Palin. Her firm, Aries Petra Consulting, made $38,000 for speechwriting. Andrew Davis, a longtime Republican operative and Palin adviser, netted nearly $35,000 for research. SarahPAC also paid Carol Ryan and Marilyn Lane, two women from Wasilla, Alaska, $2,500 a month apiece for “part-time clerical work.”

You know I don't personally HAVE a PAC, yet. But if I did I can assure you that the criteria for how "good" somebody's consulting was would partially determined by how often my remarks were ridiculed on late night comedy shows or fact checked by the dispshits on Fox and Friends.

From what I have seen the only thing "good" about these Palin consultants are that they have not already abandoned her sinking ship of a career fro greener and more lucrative pastures. But once they do, and trust me they will, what will the Palin-bots have to say about them then?

At this point the few remaining SarahPAC donors are akin to the same people who call into televangelist shows and pledge a portion of their paltry retirement benefits to hold a spot for them in heaven. However it is unclear to me as to what benefit, in this life or the next, that these people believe Sarah Palin can achieve on their behalf.

As far as I can tell the benefit is all one direction. They pay, and Palin plays.

However all is not lost for these wretched souls. At least two of them, Dr Donald R Scifres, TTEE and Elizabeth Martin Wiskemann, saw the light and broke away from this suicide cult and have taken back their money and are hopefully now spending it on something that will actually help others or somehow benefit themselves.

Perhaps they could pool their money to start a Palin-bot 12 step recovery program for disenfranchised donors and disappointed horny old goats.

Paul Ryan soup kitchen photo-op causes mass exodus of donors.

Courtesy of the Huffington Post:  

In the wake of Rep. Paul Ryan's embarrassing soup kitchen photo-op last week, the organization that runs the facility tells The Huffington Post that donors have begun pulling their money out of the Youngstown, Ohio charity. 

Ryan may have suffered a few late-night jokes, but the fallout for the soup kitchen appears to be far more bruising. Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, confirmed that donors have begun an exodus in protest over Ryan's embarrassment. The monetary losses have been big. "It appears to be a substantial amount," Antal said. "You can rest assured there has been a substantial backlash." 

Antal says he can't give an actual dollar amount. "I can't say how much [in] donations we lost," he said. "Donations are a private matter with our organization." 

Antal's charity represents the kind of organization that conservative Republicans might champion. But that was before the Ryan incident went viral a few days ago. According to The Washington Post, Antal said that the moment should never have happened. He told the newspaper that the photo-op was not authorized and that the campaign had “ramrodded their way” inside. 

Ryan supporters have now targeted Antal and his soup kitchen, Antal said, including making hundreds of angry phone calls. Some members of Antal's volunteer staff have had to endure the barrage as well, he said. "The sad part is a lot of [the callers] want to hide behind anonymity," he said, adding that if someone leaves their name and number he has tried to return their call. In addition to phone calls, people have posted a few choice words on the charity's Facebook wall, including statements like "I hope you lose your tax [sic] emempt status," Anyone who is thinking about donations to you should think twice" and "Shame on you Brian Antal!" 

On the phone with HuffPost, Antal seemed worn out by all the vitriol. "Honesty, I really don't need any more attention," he said. "I really just want this to go away."

 Just because your candidate is a giant douchebag who gets caught bullying his way into a charity to have his picture taken creating more work for the staff by contaminating sterilized dishes is NO reason to blame the charity!

Okay WTF is wrong with these people?

Scott McAdams to Lisa and Teabagger Joe: I showed you mine, now you show me yours. Update!

McAdams Campaign Releases List of Donors, Urges other Candidates to do the Same

McAdams vows not to accept money from corporate PACs

U.S. Democratic Senate candidate Scott McAdams challenged his opponents to be more transparent with Alaska voters and to disclose the source of their donors by releasing the complete list of individual and political action committees (PACs) that have contributed to their campaigns.

“Alaskans need to know now, before the election, who is funding the Senate campaigns,” McAdams said. “Lisa has accepted startling sums of money from corporations and now openly touts the support of a new ‘Super-PAC.’ Meanwhile Joe’s fundraising is still hidden behind a maze of Tea-Party donors and Outside interests.”

McAdams is the only candidate to post his most recent donor list, dated October 15, on his website.

This action illustrates the inadequacy of existing federal election law. Furthermore, at the Alaska Dispatch candidate debate in Anchorage, McAdams vowed not to accept any money from corporate PACs now or when he gets elected.

“There is already a tremendous amount of special interest and corporate money in this Senate race,” McAdams said. “Unfortunately, it is very difficult for voters to find out who is giving to candidate’s campaign without the candidates themselves posting the information.”

Currently federal candidates are not required to file their Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports electronically. Instead, they are only required to mail in hard copies which the FEC then posts. This year the reporting deadline for post-primary quarterly FEC reports was October 15, 2010 and the reports have not yet been posted on the FEC website.

The McAdams for Senate donor list can be found right here.

Well I for one would LOVE to see exactly who is donating to Murkowski and Miller's campaigns!

Wouldn't you?

Update:

McAdams campaign reaches million dollar mark!


In only 2 months, the Scott McAdams for U.S. Senate campaign has raised over $1 million in donations. Almost all funds have arrived in donations under $200. This statistic stands in sharp contrast with Scott’s opponents who rely on outside media buys and corporate public action committees (PAC’s). Facts about the McAdams campaign fundraising results:

Total amount raised August 5, 2010 – October 20, 2010: $1,010,000
Total number of donations: Over 12,000
Total number of people who donated $200 or less: 88%
Total number of Alaskans who donated: Over 3,900
Total amount donated by Alaskans: $538,000 (54%)

88% of donations were $200 or less.

Now THAT is a grass roots campaign! 

The Teabaggers brag that they are the grassroots campaign. But that is bullshit!

If Miller wants to prove he is not a corporate whore he needs to post HIS donor list.  If he fails to do that then we know that his campaign is funded by millionaires from outside trying to influence Alaska politics and get their hands on our resources to make themselves even richer.