Working with the Tea Party Partiots in Arizona and Nevada, I’ve been dismayed to see so much influence from Freedom Works and the GOP factions around the Tea Party Express. Wretchard, what do you make of the insurance funds flowing through Freedom Works?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30219673/the_lie_machine

An example of how she strategizes, you have only to look at the US Army. Obama comes in and changes NOTHING! Pelosi tells him to offer the Secretary of the Army chair to a republican! So she just freed up a republican seat, that has been in republican hands since 1840! And, ya know what? It wouldn’t have mattered if Dede Scuzzafava had won it, instead. (And, Doug Hoffman’s changes of climbing above Bill Owens’ total isn’t much of a reality, either.) So, for strategy, the abilities reside in your Majority Chair. Newt made a mess of it. And, Hastert was worse!

What people probably don’t realize is how the money extends outward, like a grapevine. Making media outlets rich. And, ditto, for some pollsters.

Of course, McCain lost. So, there ya go. One side wins. The other side only needs a little over 50% to pick up everything. And, it takes a special type of person to “dial for dollars.” Which is another thing that separates real politicians, from losers.

Up ahead, however, the pharmaceuticals, who put in the biggest pot of cash you can visualize, are coming to discover the downside. When the winners shaft ya. And, then, come at you, again, looking for more money. Are you exhausted yet from all these trappings?

This may hold true for why a majority of Wall Streeters are Democrats: so they can get along with their tony neighbors on Manhattan and in the Hamptons.

As I noted, such matters quickly become a two way street. Once it does so, the stronger partner will provide both direction and support to the weaker partner to accomplish their own ends. Cash is the most fungible means of support available. Let us note the public revelations of funding anomalies by the Democratic Party.

Let me emphasize strongly that I do not make any claim that the Republican Party is moral, honest, or anything but a mechanism for achieving political ends. The problem with them is largely that their public political ends as believed by its base are not the actual political ends they are pursuing. The principles they claim are not what they are fighting for. Thus the dissonance with its base.

I will say that there is reason to make a working assumption that the Republican Party, while not totally honest, is not taking aid from foreign sources; especially hostile ones. The reason for the limited statement of faith in the Republicans is simple. There is a constant level of investigation and observation of the activities and personalities in the Republican Party that would preclude such. If it could be shown that the Republican Party was operating in alliance with a foreign power, it would result in a new star in the media firmament, and a host of Pulitzer Prizes for the reporters who broke the story.

If a Democrat was caught in bed with an underage live boy or dead girl with the encounter Federally funded through ACORN; if it was reported at all, he would be praised in the media for his work with youth. If a Republican is caught littering, he will be reported as being an environmental monster. The difference in emphasis between what the state-controlled media covers is blatant.

As an example we can look at the hordes of reporters literally going through trash dumpsters in Wasila, Alaska in a desperate attempt to find anything unsavory about Sarah Palin. Or more recently, the ELEVEN Associated Press reporters assigned to “fact check” her book. Or the special report issued by CNN to “fact check” a satirical comedy piece on Saturday Night Live that was less than idulatory toward Buraq Obama. [Admittedly that last was also done as a deterrent to any further such sketches].

Contrast that with the media’s deliberate and studied lack of interest in any part of the background of Buraq Obama, or his TWO autobiographies; both of which it seems by forensic analysis and coy admissions, were not written by him.

If after all of that scrutiny, there have not been any such stories about Republican misdeeds, even made up ones; there probably are not any out there of comparable nature to the Democrats’.

Moving back to the concept of working with foreign powers, the Democrats have not only tried to illegally work with our enemies to influence our domestic policies [as described in the previous thread]; the quid pro quo has moved beyond words.

Consider the 1992 primaries. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was running for President. Part way through the New York Primary, Clinton was broke. James Riady [ethnic Chinese from Indonesia] arranged a multi-million dollar unsecured loan from Worthen Bank with the funds actually coming from a Bank in Hong Kong controlled by the Lippo Group. Riady ran the Lippo Group Conglomerate, which had ties with Chinese Army intelligence.

There were further illegal contributions from Riady and his employee John Huang, and others, resulting eventually in their being found guilty of violations of campaign finance laws and fined $8.6 million; which was paid by the Lippo Group. The Democrats got to keep and use all campaign contributions until after the elections.

During the 1996 campaign, the money was gathered by Al Gore. The Democrats received millions of dollars in illegal bundled contributions from people around the country who had themselves received it from overseas. One can remember the classic Al Gore fundraiser at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights, California; where he raised $166,000 cash from Buddhist monks who were supposedly under a vow of poverty, and most of whom were foreign nationals and not legally allowed to contribute. The money was funneled by the aforementioned John Huang.

Gore used the phrase “no controlling legal authority” to claim innocence. It seems to have worked. The press downplayed the trials and conviction, and there was no more than a wink and nod to the administration for receiving the illegal money that Riady and Huang were convicted of giving.

Now we have the 2008 campaign. It has been documented elsewhere in excruciating detail exactly how the Obama credit card operation deliberately removed all the normal built in software controls that would enable the contributions to only be collected in accordance with the law. Further, the controls that would protect against credit card fraud were also disabled [matching name and card number, etc.], and there were a goodly number of American credit card holders who were billed for contributions they had not made. A large portion of the questionable contributions came from overseas. Historically, there are not that many expatriate Americans who contribute to political campaigns from overseas, or even vote. In addition, several large, bundled, illegal foreign [from Gaza, from Kenya, from Egypt] contributions were stopped. Given the porous nature of the spot checks on contributions; it is not unreasonable to believe that a whole lot more got through.

The question that remains is exactly WHO overseas would have a vested interest illegally funding a Democratic candidate for president? The evil Swiss? Perhaps the Andorrans. Or perhaps it is a collection of the various foreign powers that the Democrats have been allying themselves with for a generation.

I offered a research project for readers in “The Devil You Know” thread; about the historical results when one faction within a nation/kingdom/empire turns to a foreign power for help in opposing another faction. The short form answer is: civil war or conquest.

Oh, as to why the Institutional Republicans did not, and do not, call out the Democrats on what they do?

I suspect it is a combination of 3 things, with the proportions varying from moment to moment. First, I am sure that they have some skeletons in their own closets they are concealing. Secondly, they have no hope of achieving any traction with any revelations about any illegal activity by the Democrats, because of the media bias noted above. Finally, as an institution, the Republicans are like the Whigs in the 1850′s. They have no deeply held overarching ideals or beliefs that can unify them or which they are willing to fight for. Therefore, they are reduced to trying to hold on to individual positions, power, and perks. The base is not so cynical, and they resent being manipulated and ignored. Thus, the Republican Party is more concerned with forcing its base to submit than with defeating Democrats.

Subotai Bahadur

Potomac fever explains a lot too. No matter how fire-breathing a Republican is when he comes to DC, he often succumbs to the siren song of ‘moderation’ and ‘bi-partisanship’ (agreeing with the Democrats). Here their wives play a big part – imagine the pressure a guy is under at home when he is constantly slandered as a bible-thumping etc by the Washington Post, and she makes it clear she won’t get invited to join the Ladies Auxiliary of the Kennedy Center (or whatever) if he keeps it up.

Then they see the millions their ex-colleagues make when they go off to become lobbyists, and suddenly they find themselves ‘indispensable’. See George Nethercutt, the guy who knocked off Tom Foley in 1994, then reneged on this term limits promise.

Yes, he and Duke Cunningham stood tall under enormous pressure in Vietnam. When their country needed them the least. When their nation needed them the most, one was a corrupt hack selling his vote for hire, and the other a corrupt hack … selling his vote for fashionable opinion.

Look at Megan McCain. That tells you all you need to know about McCain.

RINOS want to lose because they ultimately agree with all the PC-Multiculturalism nonsense.

The only way to beat the money is through FEAR. What Breitbart is doing. What CRU did. What hopefully, the “Army of Davids” can do by targeting Obama, his friends, his family, his backers, and digging out every dirty little secret, every ugly little transaction, every corrupt bargain, and making it public. Through the internet.

I get the impression that the Obami and the Democrats treat the 2008 victory as having “bought” the country. The votes they received are perceived by them as currency. Numerous statements and actions by Obama and company all scream “we own this, so we’ll do as we please.”

It’s as if we citizens are to be considered tenants on Obama’s property.

Remember, this is the guy who implied to European diplomats that the American nuclear arsenal was “his,” for him to do with as he pleased. The nationalizing of most of the auto industry is another dramatic example, as well as the notion that he is a “partner with God on matters of life and death.” And the list of examples goes on and on. I have read blog entries from leftists who gloat that “the military is OURS now! (yeah, right)” and other sophomoric nonsense. To these folks, this was a conquest, and they are now occupiers dealing with an often sullen populace. For an ideological bunch who railed against American occupation of Iraq, they seem to be fine with doing the equivalent with their own country.

Perhaps you could run for Congress in one of the phantom districts receiving stimulus money? I’d suggest a robust Deadwood platform.