Comments on: “I’m not a Republican. I just donate to them generously… and exclusively.” http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/ Screams in the Night Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:51:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Delia http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16565 Delia Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:19:23 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16565 I don't know if it is really disingenuity, William -- most of the articles on craigslist/Craig Newmark are just plain fiction... (and a good part of these writers appear to honestly believe the fairy tale). D. I don’t know if it is really disingenuity, William — most of the articles on craigslist/Craig Newmark are just plain fiction… (and a good part of these writers appear to honestly believe the fairy tale). D.

]]> By: wdr1 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16564 wdr1 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:52:00 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16564 It's disingenuous of the media to portray it that way. If Whitman contributed exclusively to Republicans and the likes of John McCain, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, and Pat Buchanan there's no way she would be described as anything other than a diehard Republican. It’s disingenuous of the media to portray it that way.

If Whitman contributed exclusively to Republicans and the likes of John McCain, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, and Pat Buchanan there’s no way she would be described as anything other than a diehard Republican.

]]> By: bethany http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16563 bethany Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:48:35 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16563 Bill, For Pete's sake, the guy's a multi, multi millionaire, and he donated around $5k. Heck, he could have given $5k to any one of those candidates and been within contribution limits--so it's really not so much to give. That's like a roll of pennies for folks like me. I think he could still be a moderate, but he should certainly be able to classify his political ideology however he chooses, and maybe someday there will be an independent or republican he will donate to... Bill,
For Pete’s sake, the guy’s a multi, multi millionaire, and he donated around $5k. Heck, he could have given $5k to any one of those candidates and been within contribution limits–so it’s really not so much to give. That’s like a roll of pennies for folks like me. I think he could still be a moderate, but he should certainly be able to classify his political ideology however he chooses, and maybe someday there will be an independent or republican he will donate to…

]]> By: Christopher Smith http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16562 Christopher Smith Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:52:53 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16562 Again, the site in question only looks at his contributions from 2004 on. Who knows who/what he contributed to prior to 2004. I think it is safe to say that a lot of people, including Republicans, were supporting the Democrats in the last few years (one need only look at the 2006 election results to see this). Once you eliminate his representatives and a contribution to a head of the majority party (which is often a wise move when you need political influence), you are left with some donations to presidential candidates and Al Franken. That doesn't make a partisan, that makes a guy who gives to a few celebrity candidates. Secondly, "libertarian moderate" is not NEARLY the same thing as "moderate". By throwing in the "libertarian" label he is thoroughly throwing himself *out* of the moderate camp and in to something entirely different (admittedly, something that would make contributions to Dean, Kerry, Franken, Obama, etc., very, very weird, but that just reinforces, in my mind, that he's a political dilettante). Like I said before, there are lots of people who honestly *think* they are moderates who are sooo not, and it is just a demonstration of nativité, rather than something diabolical (heck, O'Reilley thinks he's an independent). I fully endorse making fun of him on this basis, but I really don't think it is anything more than that. Again, the site in question only looks at his contributions from 2004 on. Who knows who/what he contributed to prior to 2004. I think it is safe to say that a lot of people, including Republicans, were supporting the Democrats in the last few years (one need only look at the 2006 election results to see this). Once you eliminate his representatives and a contribution to a head of the majority party (which is often a wise move when you need political influence), you are left with some donations to presidential candidates and Al Franken. That doesn’t make a partisan, that makes a guy who gives to a few celebrity candidates.

Secondly, “libertarian moderate” is not NEARLY the same thing as “moderate”. By throwing in the “libertarian” label he is thoroughly throwing himself *out* of the moderate camp and in to something entirely different (admittedly, something that would make contributions to Dean, Kerry, Franken, Obama, etc., very, very weird, but that just reinforces, in my mind, that he’s a political dilettante).

Like I said before, there are lots of people who honestly *think* they are moderates who are sooo not, and it is just a demonstration of nativité, rather than something diabolical (heck, O’Reilley thinks he’s an independent). I fully endorse making fun of him on this basis, but I really don’t think it is anything more than that.

]]> By: Delia http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16559 Delia Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:13:18 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16559 he would probably say that it just *so happened*... so far:)... and it may not be untrue -- I suspect he is quite capable of switching "political sympathies" if the "price" is right: say, all in a sudden republicans favored such things as "net neutrality" (which would mean serious money for craigslist and, of course, for him, as the owner of a big chunk of it) D. he would probably say that it just *so happened*… so far:)… and it may not be untrue — I suspect he is quite capable of switching “political sympathies” if the “price” is right: say, all in a sudden republicans favored such things as “net neutrality” (which would mean serious money for craigslist and, of course, for him, as the owner of a big chunk of it) D.

]]> By: wdr1 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16558 wdr1 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:26:11 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16558 I did see his response. That would mean the best people are Democrats & only Democrats. (As he hasn't contributed to another party.) Again, that's fine, but to then claim you're *not* a Democrat is somewhat disingenuous. I did see his response. That would mean the best people are Democrats & only Democrats. (As he hasn’t contributed to another party.)

Again, that’s fine, but to then claim you’re *not* a Democrat is somewhat disingenuous.

]]> By: Delia http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16557 Delia Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:16:00 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16557 Hi, William! I don't know if you noticed but he sort of answered this on twitter: "I contribute to the best people,regardless of affiliation" http://twitter.com/craignewmark/statuses/947880022 Delia P.S. I don't know if you are aware (I suspect not) but he appears to have contributed to NAMBLA (http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2007/05/craig-and-nambla-north-american-man-boy.html) -- I wish somebody would really look into this... P.P.S glad I came across somebody else who is not talking his word as gospel -- keep it up!:) D. Hi, William!

I don’t know if you noticed but he sort of answered this on twitter:

“I contribute to the best people,regardless of affiliation”

http://twitter.com/craignewmark/statuses/947880022

Delia

P.S. I don’t know if you are aware (I suspect not) but he appears to have contributed to NAMBLA (http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2007/05/craig-and-nambla-north-american-man-boy.html) — I wish somebody would really look into this…

P.P.S glad I came across somebody else who is not talking his word as gospel — keep it up!:) D.

]]> By: wdr1 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16554 wdr1 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:28:17 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16554 I think you've both missed the central point: There's this bizarre notion that one can contribute exclusively to Democrats & still be portrayed as middle-of-the-road, but if the same type of donations were made to Republicans there's no way that would fly. Long ago, I remember reading that at one point the overwhelming (90%+?) of the Reagan White House press corp had voted against him. Asked if that would influence their reporting, they response was no, because they put aside personal politics when reporting. Fast forward & people claim Fox can't report unbiased news because it's staff has conservative leanings. There's this notion that one can be liberal & without bias, but the sword doesn't cut the other way. The reality is, neither can and I'd like to see the media do more legwork. Don't expect us to pretend a member of the media is above human foibles & policy preferences. Rather, tell us what they are & let us decide for ourselves. I think you’ve both missed the central point: There’s this bizarre notion that one can contribute exclusively to Democrats & still be portrayed as middle-of-the-road, but if the same type of donations were made to Republicans there’s no way that would fly.

Long ago, I remember reading that at one point the overwhelming (90%+?) of the Reagan White House press corp had voted against him. Asked if that would influence their reporting, they response was no, because they put aside personal politics when reporting. Fast forward & people claim Fox can’t report unbiased news because it’s staff has conservative leanings.

There’s this notion that one can be liberal & without bias, but the sword doesn’t cut the other way.

The reality is, neither can and I’d like to see the media do more legwork. Don’t expect us to pretend a member of the media is above human foibles & policy preferences. Rather, tell us what they are & let us decide for ourselves.

]]> By: ben http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16553 ben Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:37:54 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16553 Wow who gives a fuck what Craig Newmark does regarding anything? Wow who gives a fuck what Craig Newmark does regarding anything?

]]> By: Christopher Smith http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/comment-page-1/#comment-16552 Christopher Smith Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:05:14 +0000 http://wdr1.com/blog/2008/10/05/flat-out-deception/#comment-16552 So, I think the laughable thing is the notion of a "Libertarian moderate". That's essentially an expression with no defined meaning. It could literally mean someone who is for libertarian principles in some areas and not in others, and depending on those areas, you would effectively be a friend of the left or the right. Particularly if his thinking is along the lines that the government ought to stay out of social issues, but ought to have a significant role on the economic sides of things, it'd be awfully hard to support a Republican and not much easier to support a Libertarian candidate (and yeah, bloody hard to support Ron Paul). Either way, calling that a "Libertarian moderate" is just BS. A far more descriptive term would be a "social libertarian". Honestly, if you look at his donation history, and there are a few things: first, it doesn't go back that far in time (and this appears to be a function of the database, not Newmark's political participation). Secondly, there are a lot of stories that could be told with his donations. All of his 2004 donations were for opponents of George Bush, who at that point could not honestly have had much in the way of love from anyone who called themselves a libertarian. He then gave a bit to his Senator, his Representative, and a whip in the Senate, all after the elections were over (hint: he was also in need of political support at the time...). Then there are the comparatively big donations to Obama and Franken. All in all that brings together a picture that suggests he tends to throw money to big celebrity candidates and focuses on presidential campaigns. If I had to guess, the guy is a political dilettante (and I know almost nothing about him personally or his politics). To the extent that he is Libertarian, I would bet it's more in an abstract sense and he hasn't dealt too much with the practical implementation side of it, even in a theoretical context. He clearly isn't very strategic (nothing to the DNC or RNC, nor contributions to all kinds of folks running for the House and Senate who might be important to anyone with political goals) in his donations, nor are they terribly significant (as compared to what partisans with his kind of wealth normally donate). People call themselves "moderates" for the same reason they call themselves "middle class". It does not necessarily represent a willful deceit, but rather a lack of context and an identification with a myth, rather than a reality. People call themselves Libertarian for a lot of reasons, but sometimes those reasons are just that this is the cool, hip thing to call yourself amongst the Silicon Valley intelligentsia. No reason to attribute malice, where naiveté will do. So, I think the laughable thing is the notion of a “Libertarian moderate”. That’s essentially an expression with no defined meaning. It could literally mean someone who is for libertarian principles in some areas and not in others, and depending on those areas, you would effectively be a friend of the left or the right. Particularly if his thinking is along the lines that the government ought to stay out of social issues, but ought to have a significant role on the economic sides of things, it’d be awfully hard to support a Republican and not much easier to support a Libertarian candidate (and yeah, bloody hard to support Ron Paul). Either way, calling that a “Libertarian moderate” is just BS. A far more descriptive term would be a “social libertarian”.

Honestly, if you look at his donation history, and there are a few things: first, it doesn’t go back that far in time (and this appears to be a function of the database, not Newmark’s political participation). Secondly, there are a lot of stories that could be told with his donations. All of his 2004 donations were for opponents of George Bush, who at that point could not honestly have had much in the way of love from anyone who called themselves a libertarian. He then gave a bit to his Senator, his Representative, and a whip in the Senate, all after the elections were over (hint: he was also in need of political support at the time…). Then there are the comparatively big donations to Obama and Franken. All in all that brings together a picture that suggests he tends to throw money to big celebrity candidates and focuses on presidential campaigns. If I had to guess, the guy is a political dilettante (and I know almost nothing about him personally or his politics). To the extent that he is Libertarian, I would bet it’s more in an abstract sense and he hasn’t dealt too much with the practical implementation side of it, even in a theoretical context. He clearly isn’t very strategic (nothing to the DNC or RNC, nor contributions to all kinds of folks running for the House and Senate who might be important to anyone with political goals) in his donations, nor are they terribly significant (as compared to what partisans with his kind of wealth normally donate).

People call themselves “moderates” for the same reason they call themselves “middle class”. It does not necessarily represent a willful deceit, but rather a lack of context and an identification with a myth, rather than a reality. People call themselves Libertarian for a lot of reasons, but sometimes those reasons are just that this is the cool, hip thing to call yourself amongst the Silicon Valley intelligentsia. No reason to attribute malice, where naiveté will do.

]]>