View Story | 32 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Yes, other Presidents reward their contributors and supporters with stays in the White House.
"Hillary Hate" is a disease that will not be cured until after the primaries.
by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:45:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!
by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:47:14 PM PDT
past Presidents have not had supporters or contributors stay over at the White House?
Sheesh.
by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:51:29 PM PDT
where necessary.
Now you source yours.
You're the one who claimed that every other president has personally authorized overnights for their top fund raisers.
Now prove it.
by RobertInWisconsin on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM PDT
no commentary?
by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:45:18 PM PDT
from President Clinton authorizing overnights for the top 10 donors 'right away.'
Your WaPo link, ironically, sez it all :
. . . the Clinton administration's systematic use of the White House to court and reward big donors goes far beyond what others have done in the past, according to officials from administrations dating back 20 years. . . . But veterans of past campaigns and administrations pointedly reject the "everybody-does-it" defense offered by some of Clinton's allies. They argue that the 103 White House coffees arranged by the Democratic National Committee and the 938 people who were overnight guests at the White House – including hundreds of contributors – represent a significant and disturbing escalation of past practices. "It's like the difference between someone who likes to have a cocktail before dinner now and then and a guy who downs a fifth every night."
. . . the Clinton administration's systematic use of the White House to court and reward big donors goes far beyond what others have done in the past, according to officials from administrations dating back 20 years.
. . . But veterans of past campaigns and administrations pointedly reject the "everybody-does-it" defense offered by some of Clinton's allies. They argue that the 103 White House coffees arranged by the Democratic National Committee and the 938 people who were overnight guests at the White House – including hundreds of contributors – represent a significant and disturbing escalation of past practices.
"It's like the difference between someone who likes to have a cocktail before dinner now and then and a guy who downs a fifth every night."
Again, I would like to see some evidence of another US President personally authorizing overnight stays for top financial contributors.
A generic and relativistic 'everyone else does it' defense is a bunch of hot air.
by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:18:22 AM PDT
claim was not part of your origional smear. It came later.
Now for one minute do you think that the POTUS doesn't actually authorize personally every guest who stays as his guest overnight in the White House?
Be real. You made a RW style smear and you intend to continue it, simply because you detest the Clintons, not because it's fair or completely accurate.
The WaPo link also said lots of other things you opted to not include or quote, even a quote from a Carter administration official stating that this was not 'invented' by the Clintons, even though it was taken to a higher level. Fundraising for the Democratic party at the time was a very important issue, because the GOP was outraising us, and 'we' needed the ability to counter that. Bill did it, was successful at it, and you, as a Democrat want to use Republican frames to denigrate him for it? You should be ashamed.
by emsprater on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:41:44 AM PDT
for equating documented facts with Rush Limbaugh talking points and 'smears.'
Besides, current cases Norman Hsu and Dickie Scruggs are even more relevant.
by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:50:34 AM PDT
March 10, 2004
2001-2002
and lastly, an article that I link to that will probably give you some self satisfaction because it regurgitates the GOP claims about Clinton, but if you read it entirely and thouroughly, you will see that it is not simply a 'Clinton' thing.
Washington Post, Monday, May 3, 1997
by emsprater on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 09:09:48 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 32 comments