Chickens, Eggs, and Scott Brown: Examiner Article

Posted: April 24, 2010 by datechguy in blogger for hire, elections, opinion/news, tea parties
Tags: , ,

My latest article for the examiner, Chickens, Eggs and Scott Brown, is up an excerpt:

Politics and money, they go together like bacon and eggs, vodka and caviar, beer commercials and scantly clad ladies. It is inconceivable that you will see one without the other.

Once your candidate gets donated money, the questions arise: Did they support a position because of the money or did their support cause the money to come?

And that is the chair where the favorite candidate of Tea Party members all over Massachusetts and the nation, Scott Brown, finds himself today.

Please head on over and read the whole thing. If you subscribe to my articles over there that certainly won’t hurt my bottom line either.

And thanks to everyone who read my first Examiner article. It’s all about respect as well.

Update: Oh and in case it wasn’t clear from the article I don’t trust the new regulations, I’m glad Brown is opposing them and I don’t care that Goldman gave him 5k or so.

Comments
  1. Cousin Sam says:

    $5k?!?! Obama got $126,349 from Fannie/Freddie to aid and abet them with a scam that collapsed the entire nation’s economy, and we’re supposed to worry about Scott Brown getting $5k to oppose harmful regulations that are nothing but Obama’s vote-pandering anyway? The double standard just gets worse and worse….

  2. Cousin Sam says:

    As long as we’re comparing oranges to oranges – by my calculations, based on adding up some data from opensecrets.org, I count $24,606,353 given to Obama by the financial industry, not counting insurance companies (if you count them it’s almost $40mil) Note that that is for the presidential race, whereas the previous $126k Fannie/Freddie figure was his Senatorial take – I couldn’t find his Senatorial figures by industry, though I would strongly suspect that if he got $126k from two companies, the total financial industry contributions would almost certainly dwarf the $300k mark. So I say again, the double standard gets worse and worse.

    Note also, that Obama, in return for Fannie/Freddie cash, actively aided (by blocking legislation) in the ongoing process that cost about a gazillion bucks off of the top of the US economy. Whatever Goldman may be guilty of, there is certainly no indication that Scott Brown legislatively aided it. Of course, simply being Republican makes him guilty by association.

  3. Cousin Sam says:

    And yes, I did read the Examiner article, so I did see the $300k figure before, but I figured that was apples to oranges.

  4. what politician ever uses their own money for anything? PACs, it seems, are always used to reimburse financial debts. Heck didn’t Obama’s PAC end up paying off Hillary’s campaign debt in 2008? I wonder how people felt about their support of Obama and giving him their money and it was used to pay off another candidate’s/opponents debt?

    Heck even Sarah Palin “spent more money to de-ice her private jets than she did donating money to candidates during the first 3 months of the year”.

    As long as this money is spent on campaining and other costs and not bribes for specific legislation, I’m cool with it.

    I just hope that the TCTP doesn’t jump off the back of his truck after less than 3 months in office.

  5. John says:

    Scott Brown is a liar and should go back to nude modeling.

  6. Cousin Sam says:

    If the question is “Do I have a problem with him taking contributions for Goldman or the finance industry?” then the answer is certainly not. I don’t have a problem with any candidate taking any money they are legally allowed from any legal group, I only have a problem if I object to their policies based on their merits, and I would have that same problem, or not, whether or not they had taken any money. Like you say, chicken or egg, there’s no way to prove which came first, so therefore only the policy matters, not the money.

    If the question is “Does this spell perception trouble for a Republican in a deep blue state, where the deepest-blue media will have it in for him with a vengeance, and he will be judged by a double standard that would never have been applied to Martha Crookly, Barack Obama, or Saint Teddy?” then the answer is most certainly yes. He is going to have a hard time countering misinformation given the local media environment which is even worse than the national media bias.

    However, if someone is going to label Brown a liar for opposing Obama’s bad (finance) legislation when he got elected in the first place by opposing Obama’s bad (health) legislation, then I’m pretty much going to figure they were a Martha Crookly voter the first time around anyway, so no net loss there.