Boy George  I suppose a flippant talking point will develop that dismisses a claim of bias, but it does actually reflect poorly on Stephanapoulos so far as we all understand the Clinton Foundation to be a self-aggrandizement / vanity organization rather than a charity…  I’m disappointed.  I listened to Stephanapoulos interviewed on Alec Baldwin’s podcast ‘Here’s the Thing’ a couple weeks ago.  He seemed like a thoughtful man, and I find it hard to believe a discerning, thoughtful man would give the Clinton Foundation $75K in a real belief they were doing great ‘charity’.  Ya know, maybe they are doing some ‘charity’, but there’s got to better alternatives amirite.  If you are going to drop $75K, you can easily find one with a greater efficiency and altruistic purpose.   …Other thing, and I’ll exhibit some unworldliness here for people who don’t have to look at their checkbooks all that often.   I know by now Stephanapoulos has gone many years doing well for himself, probably has a $2M per annum job.  Still, it’s a W2 job with all the deductions that entails – he’s got overhead.  It strikes one (me) that $75K is not an irrelevant amount for his household.  It’s borderline irrelevant $ for the Clinton Foundation however.  So it just seems weird that Stephanapoulos has a motivation to make this big for him / small for the foundation donation, like some perverse umbilical kickback to the mothership.  It’s creepy sycophantic.

Jots with dots

War on Christianity: Stillwater  Just kidding.  I ask though…. What’s the necessity of registering officiants?  We going to be a cold Somalia if we don’t?

As reformers, Hodges and Harteau seem awful reserved about figuring this out.

I don’t believe this counterintuitive observation:


3 thoughts on “Boy George

  1. pm1956

    Trade: I do think that there is reason to think that this is true–that there is more support for free trade among Democrats than among republicans (talking rank and file here, not elected officials). Basically, support for free trade is higher among those who are more educated/white collar, and lower among those who are less well educated/blue collar. And, since the 1980’s, the parties relative support among those groups has shifted/flipped (with the noticable exception of union members, who are becoming fewer in number all the time). Basically, the GOP is becoming more and more blue collar and less well educated (fewer college grads), while Dem support is becoming more white collar and college grads. So it all makes sense to me (also, Dem politicians like Klobuchar and Franken oppose this out of loyalty to union members who are opposed, and some liberal interest groups with fringe concerns on non trade issues)

    War on Christianity. I know you are kidding, but it is a thing…a bizarre thing. Still, the drive to register officiants comes from organized religions who want to protect their historic control of things like marriages. You can’t have just anyone speaking for God, you know…..especially when this is how some people make their living. They are organized, and they are organized in order to protect their livelihood.

    Steph: Chait again has this right–there is no controversy there. It is a contribution to a charity, and in no way goes into Clinton’s pockets. Frankly, the controversy should be in hiring Steph to the post in the first place–as a pre-existing Clinton Loyalist. Nothing he has done with the contribution in any way changes the pre-existing facts. But we have already decided that “ex” politicos in “journalism”/entertainment roles is OK (shit, look at Fox! The place is full of ex political hacks! and don’t tell me that they are not making charitable contributions to Presidential Libraries, much less to political campaigns!). And that is another point–frankly, campaign contributions and contributions to super PAC’s, etc. are far more suspect from an influence peddling perspective than contributions to the Clinton Foundation or the Reagan Presidential Library (or Bush, Bush, Clinton, Obama Presidential Libraries).

    1. pm1956

      BTW, i feel compelled to add that i do think that Stephanopoulos is a very insightful, intelligent and interesting journalist. far superior to the ordinary run of the mill ex political hack.

      1. W.E. Peterson Post author

        As I say, I thought in his interview with Baldwin, he had some appearance of being an earnest, deep thinker, and even even handed. But if you’re that, I think you have to understand that giving to the Clinton foundation isn’t about ‘charity’ first. Its an in-group thing for the self-aggrandizement of the contributor there and the recipient. He ought to not do that as a journalist, and he ought to be able to resist that having made his own life 15 years removed from the Clinton Administration.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s