CSP Responds: "It's not taken out of context, it's a lie"

It is important that folks (4.00 / 1)

stand up to the lies and attacks by the UL's small circle of wackadoo Republicans that inhabit their comment sections too.

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 14:35:08 PM UTC

Publicity hounds set off by jealousy. (0.00 / 0)

At least the headline of this story calls attention to CSP.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 15:16:36 PM UTC

Taken Directly From The Union Leader: (0.00 / 0)

President and Publisher Joseph McQuaid's comment, "We would prefer that New Hampshire news consumers get that information directly from us."  That quote was in their newspaper, so I guess they got it right and Joe McQuaid wasn't taken out of context, so it's what they really want to do.  

Their new banner slogan should be exactly that.  "All The News We Prefer Consumers Get From Us."  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 16:30:56 PM UTC

But what IS she saying? (0.00 / 0)

The following is from the ABC link.

Shea-Porter said watching the growing influence of special interest money had been her biggest disappointment, calling it "awful for democracy."

"I think it's strangling us," she said. "They're in the halls of Congress everywhere, and it means, for example, that you sit on a committee and you say something about concern about Chinese influence or something, you don't even know if in the next election, somehow or another, they manage to send some money to some group that now doesn't even have to say where they got it."

Assuming that quote is accurate, I for one would like to hear more from CSP on this.

One possible interpretation of what she said is, "American Company ABC doesn't like it when I talk about Chinese influence, because they have interests there, and their lobbyist gets on my back about it, and eventually they fund my opposition."

Is that the sort of thing she's talking about? If so, I'd really like to hear more. And it doesn't even have to be specific company names, if there are reasons not to disclose that. Is it specific industries? Is it a general problem? Am I misinterpreting the comment?

---

by: JimC @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 18:09:36 PM UTC

Corporations have gotten into the habit of defining (0.00 / 0)

competition as a contest or conflict in which they try to wipe each other out, the object being for one to gain a monopoly and end up on top.  It's not clear to me whether the members of Congress encourage this attitude and play off one corporation against another, indulging in power plays in which they themselves have little to nothing to lose.  You know, sort of like organizing a dog fight or a cock fight.
Whatever the etiology, the result is quite clearly that the halls of Congress are swarming with lobbyists, trying to minimize damage to their interests and, very likely, taking note of Representatives who don't play the game, aren't into extortion and can't be bought off.

Very likely, CSP hasn't quite figured out that people are often penalized for doing the right thing.  Also, I don't think we fully appreciated how intimidated some people feel when someone they associate with is attacked and that, instead of rushing to that person's assistance, they back away.  That's why, when someone is unfairly attacked (abused), it's really important for outside forces to interfere.  A victim of abuse cannot defend herself.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 18:44:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This clarification from her spox (4.00 / 1)

is pretty much exactly how I took it when it first aired and I watched it:

"The congresswoman was not referring to her specific election, she was referring to the broader problems surrounding the Citizens United  decision, which has allowed shady outside organizations to sway elections without disclosing their donors," spokeswoman Jamie Radice said in an e-mail.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 21:01:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Dean (0.00 / 0)

But I want to know why China is a hot button.

Who is it a hot button for, and why?

I recognize that CSP didn't say that China is a hot button; it was an example. But it was the first and only example she mentioned. Why? Is she recalling a specific incident?

If a Congressional rep talking about China in a Congressional setting gets flak from anyone, that's what we call ... news.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 21:18:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Foreign governments have lobbying efforts in Washington. (4.00 / 1)

Because there's no disclosure, we can't point out an organization that we know is spending a foreign government's money to influence American elections.

But given what we know about the government of the People's Republic of China, the fact that they're capable of doing it makes a pretty good bet that they are doing it or will soon try.

Remember a few months back when Google got hacked from China? Wikileaks showed us that effort was ordered by the highest levels of the PRC government because he Googled himself and didn't like the criticism.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 21:30:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, but (0.00 / 0)

You're speculating. I'm requesting clarity. As you know, I'm on CSP's side.

Was she talking about China directly? Was she talking about North Korea?

Was she talking about technology firms? Fiscal policy? Trade policy?

Afghanistan?

The right-wing bloggers, in their way, have pointed us to something interesting. Maybe it's just a plain smear, and they want CSP to look whiny or something. Maybe an industry that's near and dear to their hearts (the gun lobby? Private military contractors?) has interests in China. Whatever it is, it concerned CSP, in her words. Should we be concerned?

---

by: JimC @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 22:10:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm on her side too, that's not the point. (4.00 / 1)

I don't care what she's being falsely accused of implying except insofar as it's a smear.

What I'm saying is, regardless of what CSP was or wasn't talking about, is it such a stretch to imagine that the PRC wants to influence our elections?

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 22:24:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, not a stretch (0.00 / 0)

But also not the answer to my question.

Or it may be the answer, but we don't know that.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 22:28:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

is carol referring to money flowing into the us chamber of commerce (4.00 / 2)

at Factcheck.org the issue of foreign contributions was dissected this fall, the chamber was quoted as saying:

A: The chamber says dues money paid by overseas companies "is not used for political ads," but won't discuss how it segregates those funds. Democratic and liberal groups want an investigation of "likely" or "possible" legal violations.

The chamber is not required to provide a donor list to the public or disclose how they keep their money separate but as we all know money is fungible and what is a trickle today could end up being a deluge tomorrow.

---

by: political chowder @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 19:08:07 PM UTC

a fresh can of echo (0.00 / 0)

its really bouncing around with WSJ picking up on the 'story'

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Wed Dec 29, 2010 at 19:36:20 PM UTC

Flipping the fearmonger (0.00 / 0)

The nationalists are pointing at China as a foreign power to fear.

The national Democratic Parties messaging, in response to Citizens United, tried some ju-jitsu. The meme was "foreign money" in our politics, via undisclosed donations or shady fig leaf PACs.

CSP was echoing the talking points from Sept-Oct 2010.

Your NH friends tried a double ju-jitsu, confining the context to her, implying that she was paranoid of some Chinese boogeyman.

The whole escapade is old hat, on both sides.

Push back.

But please try fresh ideas. You'd be surprised at how quick on the uptake Amrericans are. They are decidedly quicker than party messaging folks.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 16:50:25 PM UTC

I agree, generally (0.00 / 0)

But I come back to CSP's initial statement to ABC, if it's quoted accurately. Her clarifications have addressed the ensuing kerfuffle, honestly and forthrightly. But I want to know why she brought up China.

It might be something as simple as, say, the meeting she just left before the interview was about thr WTO. It might be something even more simple and mean nothing at all.

Her quote again:

"I think it's strangling us," she said. "They're in the halls of Congress everywhere, and it means, for example, that you sit on a committee and you say something about concern about Chinese influence or something, you don't even know if in the next election, somehow or another, they manage to send some money to some group that now doesn't even have to say where they got it."

They who? Put China aside for the moment, if it's fear-mongering to talk about China. (I say it isn't, by the way, any more than it would be if we were talking about energy lobbyists.) Who is "strangling us?"

---

by: JimC @ Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 17:40:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]