Really grafty…. But maybe not enough to be disqualifying for Dems

This can’t actually be casually dismissed as the Clintons merely lacking the self-discipline to keep their pockets closed to money that gets thrown their way.

I mean, sure, you can casually dismiss it… but that’s obtuse or consciously delusional.  It’s a robust influence peddling gambit, and the Clintons understand the power relationships there.  And what’s happening at this moment, with Chait and Vox and the NY Times, is the base is deciding whether or not they’re up to spouting Clinton lies for 5 years or more.  It’s a hard ask because the Clintons may very well disappoint with a scandal that can’t be diminished with a buncha lies.  Other thing is, The Democrat base is in embrace of a sentiment that despises corporate oligarchy and ambiguous money while…. The Clintons are whoring out for corporate oligarchy and getting paid with ambiguous money…  This is going to be the actual complaint the R’s make about Clinton rather than an observation about populism that the Rs may fumble.  It’s that the Clinton’s are whores to the oligarchs.  And it’s true, and the contrast is real.  Certainly Republican’s take ambiguous / soft money and their position on soft money isn’t easy to defend against prevailing thought in these times, but Republicans are almost obtusely ideological there.  They’re not whores generally, not like this.

Jots with dots

Then again, this would be welcome:

Sanders, in: Fringy, I don’t actually think he’s got a deep well of well regard.  Ya know, principled man, but he’s Quixote-esque, and his run is Quixote-esque.  But, could do worse.  Like with HRC.  And you can envision where the base gravitates towards him, he stays close, and HRC blows up.

I said that:  It’s a police problem.  In-group psychology and then passive and institutional racism means minorities suffer more.   It’s also to say, I reject that it’s a root causes thing generally.  Cuz it’s a police problem.

Rand:  Root causes.  Very disappointing pander to the GOP base there, unless he wants to pair it with a notion that we jail too many of these fathers.


5 thoughts on “Really grafty…. But maybe not enough to be disqualifying for Dems

  1. pm1956

    Look, let me ask you a question:

    Do you think that donations to the Clinton Foundation are more or less corrupt than donations to an election campaign?

    Is one more or less of an attempt at influence peddling? If so, which one, and why?

    1. W.E. Peterson Post author

      I think there’s a fairly big difference with one being beyond the pale, over the line.

      You donate to campaigns, yes, if you are successful you buy some influence with a legislative entity that can and probably will act to your benefit at times. But there’s often a natural or pragmatic political alignment that ameliorates the crudity of some of these quid pro quos. And… you’re at the mercy of all the other legislators being sympathetic to you as well, which I guess you would say acts to prevent initiatives of very narrow benefit.. Society approves of this relationship, if only marginally.

      The implication here is that Bill Clinton would make an earnest effort to move the levers of government administration for you if you donated to the foundation, and one of those levers was his wife, who was an un-elected executive admisnistrator. And this requires more ambiguity and surreptition, because it’s grafty and society does not approve of this.

      1. pm1956

        I don’t think it is anything near an open and shut case. Think about donations to a Bush Presidential Library. Are you getting the loyalty of the Bush clan? And its various retainers? Certainly you could get access. But then, you could probably get similar access simply by hiring Karl Rove or having Jim Baker as your legal representative. Certainly I know people who hired Roger Stone to get access to the Reagan Administration. Same with Lee Atwater. And why not James Carville?

        My point is that there are all sorts of ways that you can use $$ to get outcomes that you want, to influence policy. There is an entire industry that does that–it is called the lobbying industry. Norm Coleman is currently a prominent member, as is Tim Pawlenty.

        What Hillary and Bill have done is clumsy, awkward and suggests too openly that they can be rented. But this is not any different from what the Kochs or Adelsons of the world are trying to do, much less what Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes do every day for work.

      2. W.E. Peterson Post author

        I can appreciate that as a fair point… (cept that I still think the Kochs in particular are not the example people imply it is… These two guys are almost completely ideological)

      3. pm1956

        OK, I can accept the Koch’s as ideological. I do agree that that is their primary thrust. (I have a friend who works for koch here in MN, giving their $$ away philanthropically, who is very liberal–does not agree with Koch bros. politically, but able to work with them philanthropically, and their philanthropical interests are by no means beyond the pale–reasonable, even).

        Ideologically, they are a bit odd…but i have seen others who are similarly odd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s