Recent Posts

Today’s Example Of Republican Hypocrisy: Donations

by TwoPuttTommy on March 4, 2010 · 35 comments

The other day, the MN GOP got its undies in a bunch over some money Charlie Rangel (D-NY) gave to Minnesota Democrats Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Al Franken.  According to MudSlingerMike’s spokestool Luke Hellier at Minnesota Democrats Exposed, here’s the breakdown:

Donations To Minnesota Democrats From Rangel’s National Leadership PAC:

Tim Walz Received $15,000 In 2006 & 2008. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)

Al Franken Received $10,000 In 2008. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)

Keith Ellison Received $7,000 In 2006. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)

Betty McCollum Received $5,000 In 2000. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)

Now, there’s a reason I always say “Hypocrisy, Thy Party Is GOP” – and here’s today’s example.

Everybody here remember ol’ Smokescreen, who was essentially court-certified as The Fourth Most Corrupt Senator?  Well, Big E sure does; after all, Big E chronicled Norm Coleman over at  The Norm Coleman Weasel Meter.

And here’s a cut ‘n paste about merely one example of some really, Really, REALLY tainted dough ol’ Smokescreen, who was essentially court-certified as The Fourth Most Corrupt Senator, took:

Norm Coleman got dirty money from Alaska
The Big E’s picture
Submitted by The Big E on October 5, 2007 – 11:40am.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has received $6,000 from VECO Corp executives. Norm may complain about Al Franken getting Hollywood money, but Norm is flush with dirty Alaskan oil money.
.
.
.
VECO founder Bill Allen and former company vice president Rick Smith have pleaded guilty to bribing public officials. They also admitted running a company “special bonus program” that steered money to favored candidates, violated federal tax laws and sent untold amounts of corporate money into political coffers.

Coleman’s office said his campaign books were closed and the money was already spent.  (MnBlue.com)

OK, “Coleman’s office said…”  Hmmm – I wonder who at Coleman’s office said that?  Thank God for google!

Coleman spokesman Mark Drake said the Minnesota senator is rejecting Democrats’ calls that he donate to charity an amount equal to the $6,000 that his campaign got from Allen, Smith and two other Veco executives on July 9, 2002, because that money “has been spent and is not an issue.”  (AnchorageDailyNews.com)

Hmmm…hmmm…Mark Drake….Mark Drake….  Hey! Is that THIS “Mark Drake”??!?

Communications

Mark Drake
Communications Director
mhd@mngop.com
(MnGOP.com)

So, the same “Mark Drake” that defended Norm Coleman over campaign donations,  is now the Communications Director for a GOP that is demanding that some Democrats do what Coleman wouldn’t??!?

This stuff can’t be made up.

“Hypocrisy, Thy Party Is GOP”

AO March 4, 2010 at 1:54 am

Did Coleman receive the sort of illegal contributions that Stevens and Rangel got?  The money from Rangel is clearly dirty, whereas the Veco money given to coleman’s campaign was not.  ”Misleading, thy party is DFL”

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 2:21 am

That great big suckin’ sound you hear?

That’s your credibility, swishin’ down the hole, pal – because you got your facts completely 180 degrees backwards.

AO March 4, 2010 at 2:42 am

Where are your facts that the VECO contributions given to Pawlenty were dirty?  We know now that Rangel has been accumulating wealth and taking trips illegally.  All of Rangel’s money is therefore tainted, whereas the VECO money is  not tainted at the source (though it was clearly distributed improperly in other cases).

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 3:04 am

ROFLMAO!!!

We’re talkin’ ’bout The Fourth Most Corrupt Senator, a/k/a Norm Coleman.

Do try to keep up…

ericf March 4, 2010 at 2:04 am

Then maybe the Republicans should demand their own politicians give back any money from freshly resigned Rep. Nathan Deal.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 2:31 am

MudSlingerMike’s spokestool, Luke Hellier, made the ol’ “one and one is eleven” GOPer stretch of imagination.

Rangel, who I’m not going to defend over his ethical lapses, is in trouble.

Here’s what CREW says, and why they list Rangel on The Most Corrupt list:

Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) is a twenty-term member of Congress representing New York’s 15th district. Rep. Rangel’s ethics issues stem from (1) improperly leasing four rent controlled apartments; (2) improperly using congressional stationery; (3) failing to report rental income from a vacation property; and (4) trading legislative assistance for contributions to the Rangel Center at City College. Rep. Rangel was included in CREW’s 2008 congressional corruption report.  (CREW.org)

Now no one is makin’ the claim that Rangel passed on tainted money, except for those in the GreedOverPrinciples party – and that’s why I pointed out MudSlingerMike’s spokestool doin’ the ol’ “one and one is eleven” make stuff up stuff.

And up there in the very first comment, you got some bootlickin’ republiCon claimin’ regurgitatin’ that GOPer stuff that not only hasn’t been proven, it’s not even being alleged – other than flat-earth republiCons, that is.

That poster is just another pathetic example of why reasonable people can no longer reasonably believe anything a GOPer says.

AO March 4, 2010 at 2:48 am

All of Rangel’s money becomes tainted as soon as he grows his wealth illegally.  You can’t separate the clean from the dirty.  VECO on the other hand, grew it’s wealth legally (though you might not like the method they used).

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 3:03 am

ROFLMAO!!!

Go back and re-read the post, pal.

You might want to get someone to help, as obviously: comprehension is NOT your strong suit….

AO March 4, 2010 at 3:24 am

My argument is that Rangel can’t separate his clean and dirty money.  If he doesn’t grow wealth improperly, he has less money to give to the DFL candidates.  You can’t turn back time and say he wouldn’t have taken this vacation or bought this and would have instead spent the money on the campaigns.  To compare the money from VECO and Rangel, you have to consider the source.  

   We might have some agreement in that, I don’t think political campaigns or charities need to give money back, dirty or clean.  I think reasonable people can disagree about that, but to equate VECO money with Rangel money just doesn’t work.

Dave Thul March 4, 2010 at 4:20 am

Is the fact that everyone in DC has known that Rangel has been corrupt and dirty for the past 9 years, since the ethics investigations started.  Thus, every dollar accepted by a Democrat politician was a dollar that they knew was dirty at the time that they accepted it.

Whether or not the money Coleman took was dirty, the controversy over the money came out after then donation was made, accepted, and spent.

See also Berg’s seventh law-when Tommy cries hypocrisy he is projecting.

ericf March 4, 2010 at 10:40 am

What’s your basis for saying everyone knew Rangel was dirty for the last nine years?

And I notice no one has addressed Nathan Deal. Why shouldn’t any Republicans give back money from him, if that’s the standard?

Dave Thul March 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm

Investigations into Rep Rangel began in 1997, and he was found to have been in violation of ethics rules in early 1999, but you are right, EricF, that was just a minor charge.  So I will modify my comment to ‘everybody knew Rangel was dirty for the past 5 years’, since he first started cheating on his taxes in 2004.  At least, that’s when he first got caught.

That means the 2004, 2006, and 2008 election cycles all saw Rangel making large donations to Democratic candidates despite the fact that he has been under constant ethics investigations since mid-2004.  I have even heard that Congress had to hire a couple extra full time lawyers for the ‘Charlie Rangel desk’ at the ethics committee office, but I can’t verify that to be true.

That last line was meant as a joke, but it is not nearly as big a joke as the ‘most ethical congress ever’ that Speaker Pelosi promised.  I mean, we have come to expect department heads in the Obama administration to be required to have cheated on their taxes in order to be considered for the job, but having the chairman of the committee that writes tax law be revealed as a multiple violation and repeat offender tax cheat for the last 5 years really takes the cake.

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 8:26 pm

is the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP.

Rangel should be long gone.  CREW has been following his problems for a long time:

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.or

CREW is also one group that followed ol’ Smokescreen, Norm Coleman, and CREW following Coleman led to Coleman being labeled as “The 4th Most Corrupt Senator.”

And I see that (as usual) all of the wingnuts – and yes, Dave, YOU are a wingnut – commenting here are ignoring Coleman’s dirty money and instead – like the little lemmings you are – only focusing on Rangel.

Crooks are crooks, but you wingnuts only care about crooks with a “D” after their names.

Reasonable people see the hypocrisy of Mark Drake defending Coleman (“then”) and being the Communications Director for the MN GOP, which is demanding the exact opposite (“now”).

The issue isn’t Walz, McCollum, Franken or Ellison returning tainted money; the issue is the GOP demanding now what they defended then.

That’s called hypocrisy, Dave.  And it’s just another pathetic example in a long line of hypocrisy, which is why I say:

“Hypocrisy, Thy Party Is GOP”

AO March 4, 2010 at 9:10 pm

You defended Rangel as you are a bigger hypocrite than Mark Drake.  You’re too much of a wingnut to see the hypocrisy in the democrat party.  The CREW report you cite to claim Coleman’s corruptness currently lists 8 democrats among the 15 most corrupt.  If you still want to be holier-than-thou , I suggest you find another party.

Dave Thul March 5, 2010 at 4:30 am

I’ll hazard a guess that the more Tommy can get us to post comments, the better the ad rates MPP can charge to the 400 DFL gubernatorial candidates.  That’s why Tommy refutes you with the logical equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears.

TwoPuttTommy March 5, 2010 at 4:51 am

Besides, nobody in the (cheney)in’ GOP has any logic in ‘em anymore; those with logic left the GOP a long time ago.

That’s a mighty small tent your party has, Dave.  And guys like you will keep it that way.

Speaking of Guber Candidates, Dave – you’re an Emmer guy, “right”?

minnesota_liberal March 5, 2010 at 7:54 am

Another example of truth being stranger than fiction.

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 3:56 am

Maybe where you live – Planet Denial – it don’t work; but here on good ol’ terra firma, it sure does.

And that’s beside the point, which you conveniently – or, shamelessly – ignore:  Mark Drake’s “That was then; this is NOW!” complete flip-flop.

Then, “Well, that was years ago; books are closed, yada yada yada.”

Now, “Well, sure, Betty took the dough back in YTK, but THIS IS NOW!!!

You GOPers are shameless.

“Hypocrisy, Thy Party Is GOP”

ericf March 4, 2010 at 4:06 am

I don’t understand why you keep saying VECO wasn’t dirty. They made their money partly through buying political influence. Executives and legislators went to prison. At the risk of damning with faint praise, Rangel isn’t in legal trouble. The people who received contributions from aren’t alleged to have been bribed. You can make a case about returning the contributions just in case there’s a taint, but the two are on very different scales.

AO March 4, 2010 at 4:28 am

I’m not ignoring a “that was then; this is now”.  I’m claiming the two cases were significantly different.  You started to argue previously that Rangel’s money is clean (didn’t pass along tainted money), while VECO’s was dirty.  Now you are at least claiming that both were dirty, therefore hypocrisy, but I fail to see where you’ve backed up your claims about the dirtiness of the VECO contributions to coleman?

AO March 4, 2010 at 4:43 am

VECO was clearly bribing congressmen, but I don’t buy the notion that their money is now dirty because of these bribes.  What they did with the money was clearly wrong, but I don’t buy the notion that the money itself was dirty.  The bribes had a net-negative effect for VECO, proving that crime doesn’t pay.  Now we compare that to Rangel who has benefitted significantly from various violations, and one is clearly not like the other.

Alec March 4, 2010 at 6:16 am

Correct me if I am wrong…..

  Rangel makes some shady money, therefore every cent he makes, from his salary, to his rental income is now tainted because the cootie money touches the good money.

  Vecco commits a crime to ensure legislation favors, regulations favors, government contract favors etc. etc. However, all of Vecco’s money is “cootie resistant”. Anything Vecco doesn’t affect the good stuff they do.

So, AO, why do Rangels misdeeds infect all of his cash, where you are conveniently able to separate the good from the bad with Vecco.

Rangel got too powerful and thought the rules didn’t apply. Call a spade a spade buddy. Pawlenty/Bachmann/Coleman etc. are just as bad, if not worse!

AO March 4, 2010 at 6:32 am

as I stated previously, the veco misdeeds turned out to hurt them more than it helped them leading to the acquisition of VECO by c2hm.  The Rangel money was clearly dirtier, and thus it makes sense why the republicans would treat the situations differently.  

There clearly are other cases of hypocrisy in political debate, but to claim that the GOP is the only hypocrite, is plainly ridiculous.  It’s all name calling.  Let’s stick to the facts of the real corrupt parties involved: Veco and Rangel.  Not Coleman or Ellison.

Alec March 4, 2010 at 7:21 am

Vecco were crooks, but they were bad at it, so it didn’t taint them! Awesome!!

AO March 4, 2010 at 9:17 am

Obviously they were bad at it, as they were exposed.  This was a company making good money before some executives bribed some legislators in an attempt to gain more money.  They failed to see the extra profits from their bribing before they were stopped.  Rangel was successful in his methods of wealth growth and passed on some of the proceeds to the dfl.

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 9:36 pm

I’ve never defended Rangel; and I’ve never claimed to be “holier than thou.”

It’s the GreedOverPrinciples party that claims to be the Party Of Family Values – and then harbors the ilk of Vitter, Ensign, et al.

And, since we’re talking about CREW, do you remember what ol’ Smokescreen’s Team said about CREW, back then, doncha?

Of course you don’t.  So, via modern technology (“google”), let’s look!

Drake characterized CREW as a “liberal front group,”

http://www.startribune.com/pol

Hmmm… there’s that “Drake” guy, once again…..

This, of course, demonstrates once again that not only is GOP the party of hypocrisy, reasonable people simply cannot reasonably believe anything a GOPer says.

Thanks for helping point that out, pal.

Alec March 4, 2010 at 9:49 pm

The premise the GOP puts forth is that associating with scoundrels makes you a scoundrel. If that is your premise, then you need to apply it equally. If Walz is a scoundrel for taking money from Rangel, then Coleman/Bachmann etc. are scoundrels for taking money from Ted Stevens and going on fishing trips with them.

Tommy is not proposing either way. He is just saying to apply your definitions evenly. The fact that Rangel is a scoundrel doesn’t excuse Coleman. The fact that CREW is non-partisan gives even more credence to their assessment of Coleman.  

AO March 4, 2010 at 10:11 pm

You did try to claim that the Rangel money wasn’t tainted, and that the only one claiming that it was tainted was the GOP.  I think we can all now agree the Rangel money was at least as  dirty as the VECO money, but campaign contributions that were made to ellison, franken, coleman, etc.. were made legally and do not need to be returned.

saying, “hypocrisy, thy party is GOP” is the definition of “holier-than-thou”!  Political corruptness and hypocritical statements are not limited solely to one party.  On the other hand, all politicians are not scumbags and to claim that “reasonable people simply cannot reasonably believe anything a GOPer says” is just a rant from a wingnut.  Spend a little time in the real world and you will find  there are reasonable people on both side of the aisle.  

 

TwoPuttTommy March 4, 2010 at 10:26 pm

I think we can all now agree the Rangel money was at least as  dirty as the VECO money…

No, “we” don’t – because I don’t agree with that.

…saying, “hypocrisy, thy party is GOP” is the definition of “holier-than-thou”!

No, it’s not.

But, do try again; you’re really rather amusing – in a pathetic sort of way….

And since we’re on the subject of GOPers reasonable people simply cannot believe, let’s look at another GOPer SpokesTool’s memorable moment:

AO March 5, 2010 at 12:06 am

Good comebacks, “i don’t agree” and “no, it’s not”.   You call people names and post unrelated videos, but you do nothing to back up your claim that Rangel’s money was clean and Veco’s was dirty.  If you really felt that way I would think you write an article defending Rangel rather than just claiming hypocrisy.  

I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that you’re not interested in debating, when you assert that no reasonable people should listen to anyone from the other side.  You’re living in your own little world.  The door to debate is open whenever you grow up.

TwoPuttTommy March 5, 2010 at 1:10 am

I’d rather debate a kitchen table.

You’re either completely ignorant about VECO’s dirty money, or a complete bullsh*tter.

You tell me; I’m leaning towards the latter.

AO March 5, 2010 at 2:25 am

Veco: earned money though oil pipeline service and construction.  Rangel: earned money through illegal contributions (such as those Stevens and other alaska reps received from Veco).  Rangel=stepping down from House Ways and Means Committee due to violations.  Coleman=didn’t step down due to no violations.

There is no doubt Veco was corrupt, but it makes sense to me why one could consider Veco’s contributions to be cleaner than Rangel’s, and thus not be a total hypocrite to claim one should be returned while the other one was just fine.  

TwoPuttTommy March 5, 2010 at 2:40 am

C’mon, tell the truth – somebody helped ya, “right”?

“…and thus not be a total hypocrite to claim one should be returned while the other one was just fine.”

And THAT is the GOP’s hypocrisy!!!  Callin’ for the return of Rangel’s dough, when they defended The 4th Most Corrupt Senator keepin’ VECO’s!!!

Who knows?  Maybe there’s hope for you yet….

Well, probably not.  After all, you’re claiming ol’ Smokescreen didn’t have any violations.  You don’t know that; Coleman lost the election so the Complaint wasn’t investigated.  What we do know is Coleman had a very shady apartment deal, and he’s never produced utility bills to prove he actually paid for his utilities.  Mark Drake twice – at St. Paul pressers – promised the assembled media he’d try to get copies; to this date, no member of the media that I know of has actually seen an actual utility bill.      

AO March 5, 2010 at 2:59 am

I hope you weren’t one of those that criticized the search for obama’s birth certificate.  That just might be “hypocritical”.  :D

but seriously, Rangel can’t even be compared to Coleman.  Maybe you’ll follow through on an investigation of Coleman, but with the facts as of now, it’s not close.  On a 1-10 corrupt scale (1 least corrupt, 10 most corrupt) I would rate Rangel a 8, Veco 6, and Coleman a 2.

TwoPuttTommy March 5, 2010 at 3:10 am

…reasonable people see the Coleman/Rangel cases as blatant hypocrisy on the part of the GOP.

And based on the GOP’s “record”, at some point you can expect the GOP to use CREW’s list to rip a “D” – even though they called it essentially a sham organization when an “R” was on the list.

The GOP really has no shame.  Nor honor.  The GOP is morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest, and institutionally corrupt.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: