Hillary and Rupert

Why is Rupert Murdock financing Hillary Clinton?  Here is what is written about Murdock's involvement in American politics on Wikipedia,
In the US he has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan. Regarding Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential bid, he said, "He's right on all the issues." Many Christian conservatives were dismayed when Robertson sold his television network to Murdoch. Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.[citation needed]
Murdoch's publications worldwide tend to adopt conservative views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war.[19] Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute. News Corp-owned Fox News is often criticized for a strong conservative and anti-liberal bias.
On May 8, 2006, the Financial Times[1] reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) Senate reelection campaign. Murdoch's New York Post newspaper opposed Clinton's Senate run in 2000.
Clearly Murdoch knew that Clinton could win a senate seat in New York but cannot win a presidential bid.  

If you think that Murdoch has had a radical conversion in his political views, just tune in to Fox News and take a look.  No, clearly Murdoch is funding the Democrat that he knows will allow Fox News to most viciously attack in killing any hopes for a Democratic Presidency.  Sadly, most Democrats continue in their blissful ignorance, unwilling to take a critical look at the very billionaire media mogul that they love to lambaste with platitudes of indignation.

My cursory look at Clinton's most recent FEC report (http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q2/C0 0431569/A_EMPLOYER_C00431569.html) of July 15 revealed massive corporate donations, but most striking were those from Murdoch owned companies.  I do not have a full list of Murdoch owned companies, but counting only those companies that I know to be owned by him, I added up over eighty-nine thousand dollars in contributions.

Sadly, most Democrats are oblivious to the fact that decision about our candidates are not just being made by major corporations, but by major corporations who are looking to make profit by ridiculing us.    Rest assured that neither Clinton nor the DLC are so clueless.  

Tags: clinton, Fox, murdoch (all tags)

Comments

64 Comments

Re: Hillary and Rupert

While I do not like Murdoch, I have no problem if he chooses to support anybody he wants to...just like anybody else, any corporation or union.

For those hypocrites on Murdoch, they do not know that his companies also include MYSPACE, a major publsihing company giving "MUCHO Dollar" to a poor book with huge expense account and tax benefits.

Murdoch can only give $4600...personally...

And his employees are like any other employees or a company - union or non union.

I am  a PRO union, PRO corporate person...

by pate 2007-08-26 10:57AM | 0 recs
Hillary and Rupert - sitting in a tree

Murdoch's fundraiser for Hillary last year - was more than a mere fundraiser. It signaled to the powerful elite that Hillary is Murdoch's girl. Get it??  She's his tool for MORE Power and MORE conservative media.

Also - News Corp execs held a fundraiser for Hillary in May - raking in $1M.  So Murdoch's individual $4600 is inconsequential.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117966 081.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

Murdoch also bought Tony Blair in 1997.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/57376

by annefrank 2007-08-26 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Why is Rupert Murdock financing Hillary Clinton?  

From the few articles written about Murdoch's support for Clinton, it appears that, as the Chairman of a major New York based corporation, Murdoch beleives that Clinton has done a good job representing New York in the U.S. Senate.

It is not unusual for business leaders to lend some support to home-state politicians. For example, money that Clinton brings home to New York City for 9/11 rebuilding, homeland security, education, etc. is money that benefits New Corp and its New York employees.

by hwc 2007-08-26 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

You apparently don't know much about Murdock if that's your argument. The man left his own country to avoid paying a higher tax bracket. He could care less about NY or anywhere else. I suppose to an ignorant public that's about the best you are going to come up with. Hopefully for you no one will ever pry too deeply.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

So let's run down what you've just said:

1) You know what Rupert Murdoch thinks.

  1. The public is ignorant.
  2. hwc is ignorant.
  3. Anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

I didn't know they let you off the Montel show, Sylvia Brown.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

No let's really run down something. I know how to read, my reading doesn't just end and begin with politics, i've read about murdock both in business and politics and most importantly i have something you turn off when i am looking at issues- common sense. i used that common sense to do what humans do- look at history and motivating factors in the past to predict why people are acting the way the yare now. more than that i am able to do what the law does every day when trying to figure out did you have intent to commit crime- i am able to look at the evidence of behavior to let me know. but you go ahead and pretend like we don't know who murdock is or what motivates him. you go ahead if thats what you need to support your candidate. just don't expect the rest us to play pretend with you.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

The condescension continues. I think you have serious personal issues that you can't debate someone without putting them down. I suggest you find a personality and learn to respect other people with opposing views.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

and i think you haven't answered the thrust of my argument. namely you attack me for saying murdock doesn't give money away for the goodness of his heart, and i base that own the man's own history. rather than responding to that critique you make up silliness about my having to be in the man's head. when i respond rightly with anger towards your manipulation, you now call me arrogant- none of which changes the core point i started off with. murdock doesn't behave like this unless he wants something. thats been his history in business and politics. noen of which requires as your manipulative response to me- that i know what anyone is thinking. it only requires as i responded back to you that i am honest. which you have yet to be .

by bruh21 2007-08-26 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

If all you meant to say was that Murdoch makes political donations because he wants something, then I would happily agree with that. Many businessmen, businesswomen, and corporations do that. Is that inherently evidence of an explicit quid pro quo? If there's evidence of that, I'd sure like to see it. But your attitude still speaks for itself.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

by the way, antipicating your behavior- the law point was to create an analogy of how us normal humans are able to figure out intent even if we aren't in each others heads. i can see where my being a telepath maybe necessary for judgement in the fantasical world that mydd has become since folks like you started showing up, but in teh rest of the world, thats not a prereq for thinking.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Again, your arrogance is very unbecoming.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

the only arrogance is here is your pretense that we have to be inside someone's head to understand behavior and the manpulation of clinton supporters of basic language, facts and Rovian manipulation of emotions. So please don't talk to me about arrogance until you look in the mirror at your own behavior and that of your comparades in arms here.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Behavior and what someone thinks are two different things. hwc posited about what Murdoch thought, you said he was wrong and went on to insult him. That's very questionable and reflects badly on your position.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

this is showing how silly many of you are. the reason hwc posited was some bs about NY state. its ludicrous on its face to anyone who has followed murdock's history to say thats his reasoning. thats no what motivated murdock- again if you followed his business and political career. and now you respond with what? that we aren't suppose to use behavior to figure out intent?

well you may want to tell the legal system and again most humans that since behavior is exactly what we use to make judgements about what people think. its a hell of a lot more evidence than "i believe murdock is doing this essentially because clinton is a senator from ny state.

indeed, even as you bitch about me doing so- you are trying to argue judgements about me based on what you claim to be my behavior. the thing is my behavior is not happening tableu rasa.  but i do find all this ironic given your claim that behavior can not  give us indication into what people think

by bruh21 2007-08-26 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Apparently I'm so silly that I'm having difficulty parsing what you just wrote.

If you disagree with what hwc said, then disagree with what he said. Call it bs if you want: I really don't care. But I do have a problem with your sanctimonious attitude because you're not even advancing any information as you put other people down. Even Billo tries to put forward evidence.

So once again, if you think you know what Murdoch thinks. By all means, let us know. But kindly do so without being a monumental a**hole. kthx.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

you are silly because you dont respond to actual arguments. you turn it into things about my personality even while claiming that i alone am the one doing so. thats silly b/c its the pot calling the kettle black . actually its a bit worse.  i made my argument when i said that murdock's history indicates none of what hwc claims by bare assertion. you accept his bare assertion and then accuse me of attacking. your response back?  paraphrasing "i am offended, and that's a sign you are arrogant and blah, blah blah. that's been your sole argument. "  none of which responds substantively to my point about murdock's history- by the way have you yet responded to his history?

by bruh21 2007-08-26 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Who said I accepted hwc's assertion? What I thought I'd made very clear was that you can't say what Murdoch definitely doesn't think unless you have an idea of what he does think. Tell me what it is that Murdoch thinks. You said that you have observed his behavior. What does he think? And yes, you could say so without being a jerk. :)

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

and its silliness to say what you are saying. essentially your argument is that we can not 100 percent know whats inside teh head of another human being. and thats cute but that's not the standards again by which we humans interact. your argument is bogus on its face, and thats why i am making fun of it. its not an argument against my position because  no one would ever require such a level of proof (can you prove thats what bob was really thinking when he shot henry? well now, but i can infer it from actions). likewise you are making such a  claim here, that i must prove beyond his own behavior and actions something other than what he has shown himself to be int eh past. you are only requiring that in some way of defending hwc's position. the problem you face is that your argument again is silly on its face.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

essentially your argument is that we can not 100 percent know whats inside teh head of another human being. and thats cute but that's not the standards again by which we humans interact. your argument is bogus on its face, and thats why i am making fun of it. its not an argument against my position because  no one would ever require such a level of proof

I smiled when I read that because this is exactly what I've been getting at. In court, testimony about  what someone thinks is inadmissible. You can't prove what someone thinks unless the person in question says "I think ...." So you're in absolutely no position to say what Murdoch thinks just as you have no way of conclusively saying that hwc is wrong. I happen to agree with you that I don't think the reason Murdoch is donating to Hillary is because she's a fabulous New York senator, but I also don't think he thinks he's going to get favorable treatment from a future Clinton Administration. You're stuck.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

and by the way at the end you once again resort to taunting and passive agressive behavior. notice i attack your argument as silly.  i dont need to prove that my position is correct because there is ample history to demonstrate who murdock is to anyone who wants to google his name. hwc provides none of it, and yet here you are trying to convince me that you aren't defending his position. yet what else could you be doing if we aren' suppose to infer from his actual behavior what murdock is about, but instead are suppose to do what with hwc's bare assertion as fact? see i dont expect you to answr any of this. just more right around the rosie and passive agressive personality stuff.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

i dont need to prove that my position is correct because there is ample history to demonstrate who murdock is to anyone who wants to google his name.

Congratulations. You win the prize. You contradicted yourself in the same sentence. On the one hand you don't need to prove that "Murdock" thinks he's going to get something from Hillary Clinton, but then you lay a googling of him as evidence of what he thinks. Very nice.

hwc provides none of it

That's because hwc can't. He/she only made a guess. But you can't prove your position either because all you have is a guess too. Unless you're a psychic or you personally heard him say something about why he's donated to Hillary Clinton, you're about as believable as hwc. Funny, isn't it?

yet what else could you be doing if we aren' suppose to infer from his actual behavior what murdock is about

And that's another fallacy. What he does is not always the same as what he thinks. Do you know who's donating to Hillary Clinton? Kenneth Starr. Why? Well, it can't be that they're BFFs. It can't be that they're going to form some new alliance. What could it be? Oh, well let's look at his history. Does that help? No, it doesn't. You can't know what Kenneth Starr thinks about donating to Hillary Clinton. Equally, you can't know what Murdoch thinks about donating to Hillary Clinton.

I'll give you my guess which is that Murdoch, like the proprietor of many businesses, wants to hedge his bets on whoever is the nominee and eventual winner in 08 be they Republican or Democrat so that maybe in the future whatever sh*t goes down that person might be willing to be more lenient or even look the other way. Do we have any guarantee of that? Nope, we don't. All we have is you suspect something.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

you are spinning. sorry, but that is what you are doing. and i decided after another diary that i wrote to solicit opinions on this sort of behavior what would be my best response. the best one is to ignore arguments are just pure spin.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Y'see. I can't expect that you'll accept my argument or the evidence therein. All I can do is say what I think and why.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

i am going to at this point let you have the last word. like i said i believe you to be a waste of my time.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

And I believe you to be someone with an attitude problem.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

and b y the way- dont think for one second i didn't notice that you didn't respond to the thrust of my argument about how your argument is bogus on its face as to how we are suppose to understand what murdock wants fo rhis money.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

I'm actually willing to hear your argument strange as it may be since you've already proven very obnoxious. You think you know what Murdoch thinks? By all means, let us ignorant people know.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

bowie given your own behavior along this thread- thanks but no thanks. each time you have responded with provocation and like a good passive aggerssive personality- you claim it was me. i mean- how did this start iwth you? your claiming that i needed to be in someone's head, but its me who started this?  your behavior is not the behavior of someone who is interested in anything.

and as for hwc, my approach with him is based on hiw overall approach on this site, including his present hit piece about obama (whom i dont support but dont want to be subject to hit pieces). there is a saying in the law- if you want fairness, you got to give it. and i have yet to see proof that you , hwc , already among others are capble of it.

my only reason for responding was for non clinton supporters and the very few who are objective enough to not per se try to spin this donation into a good thing whichagain by the way is hwc's history. any negative is spun as a good, and any positive of another candidate (like his hit piece on obama) is spun as a negative.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Frankly, I am trying to figure out what you're saying about Murdoch. You've said that if one follows his career and behavior, it should be clear what he thinks. Then what is it that you believe he thinks? Obviously you disagree with hwc's assessment. Go ahead. Tell us.

I guess it's rather elucidative that you have some grudge against hwc. But instead of being abusive and putting him/her down, you should be taking him/her on with a clear argument. My problem is the attitude you have chosen to take. And yes, in fairness, I've called you on it.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

I kindly suggest you stop arguing with him. It's a complete waste of time. He just likes to pick up a fight.

by areyouready 2007-08-26 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

again you are being . again you dont know anything about murdocks career yet you are arguing to me from the start that i am wrong about it. and i note who is now coming to your aid- one of the biggest hillary trolls on this site.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

I really needn't any aid in dealing with you. And really, have I put forth any opinion about what Murdoch thinks? That's news to me. But you still haven't told us what Murdoch thinks. Don't you know? You certainly had given me the impression that you did...

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

by the way if you are being seriuous- you dont get the concern- look up the family who previously owned the WSJ, and you will understand why they would sell to murdock when they weren't willing to sell to others. It comes down to the fact they wanted to protect the wingnutery of the papers editorial page, and not the quality of the rest of the paper.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Well, that's certainly an opinion but not one that I feel doesn't really get to the crux of why Bancrofts sold. The newspaper business has been in free fall for years. Dow Jones is a publicly traded company and the management has a duty to make it profitable for the investors. Murdoch offered an enormous sum and then threatened to yank the offer if they didn't respond quickly enough. That would have been a disaster for the company. They were really backed into a corner by a good deal. As Fran Drescher's character in Spinal Tap said: Money talks and bullsh*t walks.

Interestingly, Vanity Fair has a very good article this month on the WSJ saga and about Rupert Murdoch's strategy there and overall with multimedia empire. You might be interested if you haven't read it already.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

My central thesis is that they have been having these issue for ever. The reason why they sold to murdock is that he could be trusted to continue the conservative line. their only other concerns was his tendency to turn everything he touches into tabloid journalism. its not merely a matter of opinion. its what he has done. in order to address these concerns he had to supposedly through the grapevine call the reporters to allay their fears. these aren't thinks that are simply opinions of the man. he's been involved in far right wing politics for ever. its why he created fox news. indeed, if one looks at his opinions on issues they are in teh far right both economically and socially of this country.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 06:22PM | 0 recs
all conservatives are not created equal

The WSJ was already conservative in its editorial page (which I never read), but on the whole it really is a good paper. I personally was disturbed by the acquisition because of my concern over the non-editorial content which I find very insightful and useful even if it doesn't comport with my perspective all the time. I agree with you that he has had a terrible history with papers, but at the same time his papers sell. Why is that? I have no idea. As Gravel likes to say: Follow the money. I'm pretty sure this was just business. And I'm also inclined to agree with VF article that Murdoch truly is a fan of the paper.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

there were also many air tight agreements, again which is kind of bs but thats getting into the legal end, in whch he agreed not to make editorical changes.

its in this context, understanding who murdock is that i don't trust him , and therefore question why he is giving money to clinton. it also doesn't help if as you say th emoney doesn't matter because of the amount. the fact is these things are perception. taking money from murdock doesn't pass the smell good test. we can not be about saying to the base hey we are with you but take money from peo who are against a progressive majority. he certainly doesnt buy into a progressive majority,a nd he certainly could care less about nyc

by bruh21 2007-08-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

I just don't see that you're saying anything real. Murdoch giving to HRC doesn't pass the smell test for you, so what? And why should she have which donations she can accept dictated to her by a rival campaign? For all of your attempts to align the two for any other reason that (and this is fact) Murdoch has bankrolled the (Bill) Clinton Global Initiative on Climate Change, there is still nothing there. No evidence. All you have is what you suspect. And that's fine. I get it. You suspect.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

okay, if you say so.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

by the way- this is exaclty why i dont bother proving anything here. just be clear, let me give you other examples in the list of my trying to prove things to a clinton supporter, and why have ceased to bother:

a) On discussing DADT, and why its been worse for gays in the military because more gays have been discharged than in any previous period, one of Clinton's supporters here said that its actually been the best thing for gays.

b) When discussing how Clinton's position on free trade will blunt our position against the GOP in states like Ohio (and this is critical because both the new governor and new senator won on trade issues), I was told it wouldn't matter. Why won't it matter. Because they too didn't see that it would matter.

c) When discussing the lobbying issue, it was reduced to all lobbies rather than the diary I wrote on lobbies against Democratic interest, and when I kept insisting on what I was talking about, I was told "i doesn't matter."

d) In a diary just today by  hwc, he attacked Obama (not my candidate) for triangulating because he supported a bill that was also sponsored by Coburn and he lauded Coburns supprot of the bill. Now- what was the bill? Opennness in the government process regarding spending. A progressive value. What was the result of that discussion? The facts there didn't matter either.

I actually have more examples. The point is- as I said to someone else- I can't convince you of something if you are going to deny every point I make. It's like trying to talk to someone about belief. Clinton is your candidate. You aren't going to believe anything is wrong with the things I am talking about because of that fact. I am  sucker for trying though.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Well if you really think you can come on here with an opinion and expect it to be accepted, then you really are a sucker. But you aren't a sucker for trying to make a point. Accusations and allegations are only accusations and allegations without proof.

a, b, c, and d are not positions that I have taken so I won't respond to them. But obviously I disagree with the notion that Hillary thinks DADT is fine and for the best; I disagree with the notion that Hillary Clinton is blindly for free trade; I really, really disagree with the notion that Hillary Clinton is some graft-accepting Washington crony; and BTD has made it clear that Obama is just as triangulating as Arianna Huffington has been claiming Hillary's been for the last 3 years.

It's not your job to convince me of anything. But if you want to be taken seriously, then yes, you need to be convincing. There's a difference. And I for one respect people who make thoughtful arguments even if I dislike what they're saying.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

what i expect is for peo to be able to not just make shit up.

for example on the DADT issue- the arguer wasn't arguing about opinion. he was arguing against easily googled facts, but since he didn't fit into his spin it didn't matter. so when you try to claim i am coming on here expecting something that's bous. In the case of the hwc diary from today about obaman, he conveniently left ouf facts not opinion about what the bill was that he was lambasting obama for having sought support on.

peo are entitled to their own opinions- not their own own facts. for example here, you say you don't see my point- what exactly do you not see? its one thing to say clinton will ignore murdock's influences, but to say that the fact murdock is conservative isn't a fact is well- as i said before silly.

and what facts hav eyou required by the way of hwc's totally made up bald assertions? none.

and i have not just seen this spin replacing real conversation with this issue, and its contributing to the toward spiral of the site. i saw it with a very well done factually based diary about the effects of the early states done on process by someone who had the research down- what was the response? trying to lable his facts as opinion too. this is so far the only retort.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

so when you try to claim i am coming on here expecting something that's bous.

I was responding to when you said:

by the way- this is exaclty why i dont bother proving anything here. just be clear, let me give you other examples in the list of my trying to prove things to a clinton supporter, and why have ceased to bother

Not only was it condescending to say you needn't bother proving anything to a Clinton supporter, implicitly you stated that you don't bother proving anything because people don't get your drift. Well, no one will get your drift until you prove your point.

The Pope is Jewish. Why should I bother proving this to an Edwards supporter? You wouldn't get it- nobody does.

As for spinning. I have always seen spin. Not just in this cycle, but everywhere always. I agree with you that people are entitled to their own opinions, just as people are entitled to come up with their opinions however they like. That doesn't make it right. And selective use of facts have been used by everyone always. So I don't see how you can say spin has gotten much worse, or more rampant, anywhere.

If you disagree with hwc about something, introduce facts that support your point. What was unfortunate here and where I managed to trap you was that you made a position about what Murdoch thinks. And you simply can't introduce evidence as to what he thinks unless he told you or unless you're a world renowned psychic.

No biggie. You disagree with hwc.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

there were also many air tight agreements, again which is kind of bs but thats getting into the legal end, in whch he agreed not to make editorical changes.

its in this context, understanding who murdock is that i don't trust him , and therefore question why he is giving money to clinton. it also doesn't help if as you say th emoney doesn't matter because of the amount. the fact is these things are perception. taking money from murdock doesn't pass the smell good test. we can not be about saying to the base hey we are with you but take money from peo who are against a progressive majority. he certainly doesnt buy into a progressive majority,a nd he certainly could care less about nyc

by bruh21 2007-08-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

He also owns National geographic...so if you read this you are supplying his coffers.

If you saw the movie "little miss sunshine", you supplied his coffers.

get real!  Murdoch is powerful because those masses support him and his corporations.

by pate 2007-08-26 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Actually, you are mistaken.  He is powerful because he is smart, cunning and mostly because he inherited his father's media holdings.

The vast majority of people making any purchase do not consider the source that they are supporting with their purchase.  Though more and more we are becoming savvy about economic voting. Many on the left are intentionally avoiding Murdoch companies.  While some will argue that these practices will not stop Murdoch, that is the same argument that justifies throwing trash on the highway.

This journal was about the influence of corporate spending in the political arena not about the influence of individual spending on corporations.  It seems that you are making a leap here.

by Hugh Stearns 2007-08-26 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Nat'l Geographic is Time Warner.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 01:16PM | 0 recs
don't wait for the

corporate media to report how much murdoch owned companies are giving to her.

one of his sons works for Bill's foundation

by TarHeel 2007-08-26 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: don't wait for the

wait did you seriously just make that comment?

thats one of the shallowest comments ever!

Just because Murdoch is an a-hole doesnt mean his son is. Just look at Ron Reagan being much more liberal than his father.

Yet you can sit there and dehumanize someone for the hard work that they do.

Disgusting

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-26 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert
Did Edwards receive money from News Corp execs?
After he requested all Dem candidates return Murdoch donations - his staff realized 3 very low level News Corp employees had donated a total of $1,000. Edwards returned it.
by annefrank 2007-08-26 12:03PM | 0 recs
$40,000 out of $27,000,000 is striking? (n/t)

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

From what I understand, Rupert also financed part of an expense budget for Edwards daughter and he got a $500,000 advance from Rupert's company and although he says he gave it to charity, I don't think there has been any proof of that forthcoming and he still would have benefited from the tax breaks.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080 7/5345.html

http://digg.com/politics/John_Edwards_be nefited_from_book_deal_with_Rupert_Murdo ch_s_media_company

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/0 3/america/NA-POL-US-Murdoch-Critic.php

John Edwards is a hypocrite and is fooling no one.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-26 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

I'm not going to go too far out on a limb to defend Edwards on this, these charges are a bit of a rouse.  There is a lot of difference between taking a book deal and taking a political contribution.  

by Hugh Stearns 2007-08-26 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

If you think theres a difference then defend your position rather than saying "well my opinion is obviously correct"

by world dictator 2007-08-27 03:13PM | 0 recs
Financing Hillary Clinton?

LOL--- thats a weeee bit of a dtretch.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-26 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Clearly Murdoch knew that Clinton could win a senate seat in New York but cannot win a presidential bid.

So he would oppose a winner then and now back a loser? that seems rather idiotic for a successful business man. In both cases it would cost him potential access.

It's also strange that if his plan is to back Hillary in the primary so she will go down in defeat in the general that he would give money for both the primary and the general. it would be more logical to limit his amount to only the primary. Giving for the general would be counterproductive after all.

But this diary is really low level conspiracy angst.

by Ernst 2007-08-26 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Okay,  Go ahead, give us your erudite highbrow and fearless speculation on why Murdock is so heavily financing Hillary even as his media empire attacks her?  

by Hugh Stearns 2007-08-26 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

where are they attacking her?

by bruh21 2007-08-26 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

On Fox News.

by bowiegeek 2007-08-26 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

This conspiracy theorist sounds like our 'annefrank' on steroids...

by areyouready 2007-08-26 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

I am giving you a one because you didn't respond to the post. Yo merely called the person a tinfoild theorist.

by bruh21 2007-08-26 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Why is this even diary worthy? You don't add anything to this debate. Everyone knows the connection between Hillary and Murdoch. It gets repeated several times a day.

We dont need a diary which is literally nothing more than  

Clinton took money from Murdoch....I think thats bad.

If youre going to write a diary,regardless of the subject, it should be a fresh perspective to a subject not reguritated opinions

by world dictator 2007-08-26 10:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Well thank you for that wise and insightful bit of original an response.  As the writer of this diary let me suggest that it might be helpful to people like you because it cites original sources so that you can go to the FEC reports and see for yourself the amount of money that she is taking, not just from Murdoch, but from every corner of corporate America.  

The reason that we keep bring this rather atrocious behavior up is because people like you refuse to provide any analysis or rational for Clinton's behavior, original or otherwise. Should we stop talking about this ongoing despicable, Republican-like behavior simply because you've heard it before?  I suppose that we should also stop talking about Iraq, public education, and healthcare.  It seems like we have just about heard it all.  Certainly this argument should silence Hillary. Lord knows we haven't heard anything original from her.  I would also like to point out that a couple of other folks said almost exactly what you did so why did you repeat it?

by Hugh Stearns 2007-08-27 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Rupert

Well thank you for that wise and insightful bit of original an response.  As the writer of this diary let me suggest that it might be helpful to people like you because it cites original sources so that you can go to the FEC reports and see for yourself the amount of money that she is taking, not just from Murdoch, but from every corner of corporate America.

I have never seen a Clinton supporter deny that she took Murdoch's money. I don't think we need "original sources" for a fact thats not in dispute. Do I need to provide an "original source" proving that the sun will come up tomorrow?

The reason that we keep bring this rather atrocious behavior up is because people like you refuse to provide any analysis or rational for Clinton's behavior, original or otherwise.

There's been plenty of arguments defending Clinton taking money for Murdoch. A summary of those arguments, and this is just a brief summary, include the following:

1. Murdoch is free to give money to whomever he wants. Its a free country

2. Murdoch might be giving her money because of his support to fight global warming

3. If the Global Warming Intiative can take money from Murdoch then any candidate should be able to as well

4. Not all newscorp rep's are republicans. Many of the top executives are democrats.

5. Edwards has benefited from Murdoch. He recieved money $500,000 to $800,000 from his book deal. The Edwards camp points to the fact that he gave the money to chairity. The Clinton camp has responded that :

    A) Edwards still accepted the tax benefits    
        (which is a personalgain.

    B) Kate Edwards as well as an Edwards
        political aide recieved money from Murdoch
        as part of the book deal

    C) Edwards could have picked another company.
        Even if he gave the money he recieved to
        chairty, Murdoch's company still gained a
        profit from the deal.

I suppose that we should also stop talking about Iraq, public education, and healthcare.  It seems like we have just about heard it all.  Certainly this argument should silence Hillary. Lord knows we haven't heard anything original from her.  I would also like to point out that a couple of other folks said almost exactly what you did so why did you repeat it?

My point wasn't that we should stop talking about issues. My point was that theres no reason to keep diarying the same point over and over again. If you want to talk about Iraq or Healthcare you should provide a new perspective or argument. We don't need multiple diaries saying "Clinton voted for the War and I think thats bad." or a diary saying "Edwards recieved a $400 haircut and I think thats wrong."

Yes we all know this. They're stated facts. If you want to talk about those subjects write something new instead of just stating the fact again.

by world dictator 2007-08-27 03:11PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads