This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 19, 2003 3:38 AM. The previous post in this blog was Dissed. The next post in this blog is Six geese a-laying. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, December 19, 2003

Bush: He loves dreamers

Those naughty, naughty troublemakers over at Portland IndyMedia have the nerve to publish a list of Oregon people who gave $1,000 or more to the Bush campaign over the last year. (Thanks to Nth of Pril, who's really on a roll, for pointing me to it.)

More controversially, the story links to the full campaign contribution reports, which in some cases contain fairly private information like home addresses. That's a thinly veiled invitation to harassment, and I don't condone it, although you would-be harassers out there will have to catch the Federal Elections Commission reports when they're not mostly down, which means you'll have to be very, very patient.

Some of the names on the list raise your eyebrow. For example, Mrs. Neil Goldschmidt popped W. $2K. I did not know that Harold Schnitzer had gone Republican, but he sprang for $2K. The folks who run Timberline, the head of Columbia Sportswear, the head of Hoffman Construction, the CEO of NW Natural, Earle Chiles, Olympic gold medalist Don Schollander, Bob Pamplin -- they're all there, and plenty more. Along with GOP politicians and candidates like Jim Zupancic, Molly Bordonaro, and Kevin Mannix.

A message to all the Beaver State lefties who are running around telling themselves, "Howard Dean is going to take back the White House for the people!": Read this list. And weep.

UPDATE, 11:18 a.m.: Emily at Strangechord links here, but taking a tip from Emma of The Oregon Blog in the comments to this post, Emily does this topic one better. Here, she says, is a search engine, with which you can figure out any person's contributions to federal races. I've tried it; it works. Check it out.

Just to give an example, Harold Schnitzer, whom I listed above as giving $2K to Bush, also gave $2K to Lieberman! Since 1997, he's listed as giving $36,000 in federal races alone. Fascinating.

Comments (11)

That information is freely available at the FEC website (http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/fecimg/query.html) Six months or so ago, I was digging around there and was pretty surprised to see what information was available.

But then I thought about it: shouldn't political donations be a publicly-disclosed activity? If you buy a home, your name is available with the city. Surely, if you give $1000 to a presidential candidate, that should also be available. Your right to privacy ends when you enter the public sphere, and in the case of politics, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Also, I wouldn't build too strong a case about Dean's prospects based on what Neil's wife's political views are. Neil himself, as reported by the FEC has never given to a Republican, much less Bush. His donations: Blumenauer, Bradbury, Hooley, Wu, Brian Baird, Max Cleland, DeFazio, Micheal Campbell.

As to the notion that business interests gave money to Bush, I can't say it's particularly surprising. But it's gonna be those unknown, $100 donors who swing this election--to Dean! (Err, I mean Kucinich!)


see, when the band isn't driving me bananas, i guess i have nothing to blog about, and i turn to newsy crap.

Its not the actual posting it that made me wince, i know its all available elsewhere. It was, as you said, Jack, a thinly veiled invitation to harassment. I do have a problem with that, just as i would have a problem if someone threw up the list of 1K donors to one of the democrats on Free Republic with the same sort of attitude, the sort of smarmy "nudge nudge wink wink".

Yes, this is how the Left behaves.

The main thing I learned from Lewis & Clark (even more than the law I paid to learn) is how filled and motivated by HATE the Left is. I have never met more narrow-minded, intolerant, and bigoted people. L&C convinced me that the Left is totally devoid of ideas and totally consumed by hate. I spent some “quality” years with them and I never figured out what the Left is FOR, only what they are AGAINST. They live in a closed culture where rudeness is rewarded. To them Republicans, and hetro’ white males in specific, are the new “die Juden.”

I’ll never forget the Maureen Dowd NY Times editorial (earlier this year) where she explained, using lovely psuedo-science, how men are genetically inferior to women and how the species would be better off if men where eliminated from the gene pool. This article was so offensive that some of Maureen’s foreign syndicated newspapers refused to run it. It wasn’t too offensive for the NY Times, however.

The thinly veiled invitation to harassment is one step away from the infamous (and equally wrong) Abortion Doctor Wanted List. It sends the message that if you disagree with us, if you use your “free speech” in a way we don’t approve, we will do what we can to intimidate you and your family, and socially ostracize you. History has shown time and time again, from Russia to the killing fields of Cambodia and the streets of Portland during the anti-Afghan War (really anti-Bush & anti-American) riots, when ever the Left can’t win in a democratic way they will resort to violence.

"Yes, this is how the Left behaves."

Actually, I bet if someone felt like taking the time to find out, you'd find that the Right is busily doing this exact same thing.

And if political groups can obtian lists of voters and contributors and use that info to send them campaign literature, why can't citizens use the same info to at the very least send people letters?

Heh. Why is it that flamers never leave real contact info? They want to call you names, but they don't really want to be KNOWN for calling you names.

Obviously, responding to the notion that "the left" is _______________--whatever that may be--is a useless exercise.

Good fun -- thanks for the link, Jack. I enjoy knowing where my fellow citizens stand and what they're willing to pay for.

Not that Evil_Dave would like someone to stick up for him, but I understand where his initial comments stem from. L&C can feel so crazy left some days that it makes you want to cut a tree down, eat an entire cow and vote straight Republican. It's a special place. But most people think their way through it, rather than react reflexively, that is, without thought or any understanding of the complexity and sanctity of the historical allusions so easily tossed about. Doing what you hate doesn't make you special, big guy.

You know, Emma, I hate to admit it but you are right.

Not about the anonymity part. I would argue that if the board is set up to allow anonymous posts, by posting anonymously I am playing by the rules. It may not be polite, but it is within the rules. And, considering the “a thinly veiled invitation to harassment” comment, it is not inconceivable that anonymity is in order. (Also, I really don’t want facilitate spam harvesting by giving the spam-bots a real address.)

However, it has become obvious that I have spiraled down into trolling and flame bait recently. (That part you were right about.) And, I really should respect Jack too much to just come on and just spit bile. So, a good very long break is in order. Politeness dictates that I should self-exile until I can behave myself.

you can also find some interesting information about campaign contributions at opensecrets.org

You can also find this information on the official GWB website:


what's the BFD?

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, Dave, I'll tell you that I spent four of the best years of my life at LC ('86-'90), and I spent a fair amount of my time there engaging in behavior I knew would offend the, ah, less flexible of the lefties. I look back on it now, though, and wonder how bad it could have been. Such enclaves are so rare now that they seem more precious and less silly (from a distance, anyway).

Clicky Web Analytics