Except for that whole donating 100K to Republicans bit.
If I was ever curious as to what made me like a Republican, David Strom being oblivious to them is probably pretty close to the top.
“I’m sort of flummoxed, but he’s not even on my radar screen,” said David Strom, president of the Minnesota Free Market Institute and an anti-tax activist well-connected with Republicans. “It seems like the emergence of a new guy who’s clearly already a major player.”
Remember, today is the day Norm Coleman is sitting down for a $1,000 a plate fundraiser with President George W. Bush!
You probably can’t afford to get in, but thats okay, because Norm Coleman doesn’t represent people like you anyway.
Loading ...
I hope this site will announce the fact that Hillary, Barack, Al or Mike hold an expensive fund raiser that neither do they represent “people like you”. I am not saying Norm does but if fund raisers are going to be used as a benchmark we should at least be consistent.
Thank you, Kerosene Hat. This post is pretty ridiculous. Al Franken is a mulitmillionaire entertainer and comedian. Mike Ciresi is a BILLIONAIRE trial lawyer. Both have made an exponential amount of money more than Coleman and this site thinks $1000 per person fundraiser is worth mentioning??? Why hasn’t Ciresi or Franken donated all of their money too the poor? Ciresi could donate more than half of his money tomorrow and never miss it. The hypocrisy here knows no bounds.
Dear Chris:
I don’t think Mike Ciresi is a billionaire. Sean
Sean,
Mike Ciresi is worth at least hundreds of millions of dollars. He was paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $400-$500 Million after the tobacco settlement and that was almost a decade ago. If he’s not a billionaire by now, he’s gotta be damn close.
Chris — As a commenter I like you. You’re fair, you’re reasonably honest, and only in the heat do you descend into the silly crap that people from time to time do.
But you’re wrong.
The law firm of Robbins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi received 566M dollars from the tobacco settlement. Now before you get any further on up the road lets clear up a few other things.
That money was not taken from the settlement the state received from the tobacco companies, instead it was a separate payment from the tobacco companies, as well, it was only 1/3rd of what RKMC could have taken from the settlement.
Now, while it’s a mere pittance, RKMC donated 30M dollars from their settlement to the Minneapolis Foundation.
Now, while I’m not absolutely certain of this, the way I understand law firms work is a lot like a pyramid scheme (all apologies to my lawyerly friends). The are partners who share in the profits of the firm, while associates are largely paid hourly for their work.
Meaning if I’m even remotely correct that 535M (before taxes mind you) was split amongst somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 partners. Now while I know that some partners have more shares than others, and Mike Ciresi as chairman of the firm has more than everyone else, he got no where near 500M dollars.
He is a very wealthy man. I saw his cabin at Bay Lake a few weekends ago, he is a fantastically wealthy man.
But your tired Republican talking point about him being an uber-rich oligarch trial lawyer is just you hyperventilating. Sean
Sean,
I don’t know what the difference is between uber-rich and fantastically wealthy would be other than a meaningless one to make the Democrat faithful feel better. Also to think that the money made by the firm was not part of the settlement is nothing but the parsing words. The money was part of the tobacco companies total liability from the case. The companies set an amount they were willing to spend to end the case and the payments to the firm came out of that amount. How it is written up after the fact is immaterial.
The firm was paid well for what they did and they should have been. But if they had taken $1 million less that money would have been given to the state. The tobacco case is anything but a case of Ciresi being charitable or altruistic. As you said, it made him “fantastically wealthy”.
KH: I don’t think the implication here is that high-priced fund raisers are inherently hypocritical and whatnot. For me, the implication is that a Senator who clearly does not give a rats ass about anyone who really works for a living, can only bring in real money by holding high-priced fund raisers that only those who benefited from federal tax cuts can afford, dig? There are a lot of liberals that hold very high priced fund raisers in Hollywood and the like, but the client√®le is quite different.
Also, I sincerely doubt that if this was a Democratic Administration as dismal as this one is, Franken and Cirisi would not be so slimy as to suck up to get money from the President who is wrecking such havoc across the globe. There is this belief in this country, that may in fact be true now, that money solves all issues in the world of electoral politics. Well, that sucks if you ask me, because most of the money in this country lies in the hands of an exceedingly small minority. Frankly, Clinton was just like Bush on all of this too. I blame him for much of the change in the distribution of wealth in this country. He laid the framework for the necons to come in and go to the bank on it.
A35,
Why would raising money from Hollywood clientèle be somehow better? The people at the top of that food chain are if anything worse to their underlings than those in most industries. A starting graphic designer can make a living working for Medtronic. How many people starting out in entertainment can do the same thing? Entertainment is one of the most stratified industries in the U.S., funny how it is on average one of the most Democratic.
So if Clinton was so bad do you think Franken and Ciresi will turn them down he or she offers up to host a fund raiser? I really doubt it.
In general, nder a very thin veneer Republicans and Democrats are the same thing. The differences are just enough to keep people distracted and polarized.
KH: I was not really saying that Democrats are better than Republicans, nor was I insinuating that Hollywood/Entertainment holds any moral elevation at all. In fact, I would be in 100% agreement on the fact that the entertainment industry is the most abusive one out there, except for maybe slave labor warehouses in China.
What I was saying about the Dems was that if a Democratic President had done what Bush has done, I sincerely doubt a challenger would ask for his financial support. I could be wrong there, but I think there is a historical line of evidence to support that there is indeed at least a LITTLE more conscience involved in the Democratic platform. Again, I very well could be wrong on that, and in general, I think you are totally right about the two parties, unfortunately. In the words of a great local rapper here in the Twin Cities: “Who do you want me to vote for, the rich or the richer? Democrat; Republican; two wings of the same vulture.”
Also, you have a very good point about Clinton. Unfortunately, he is not known - to Democrats or Republicans - as a principle actor in ruining the economies of many Third World nations, and helping to create the current mess we are facing here. I think both Franken and Cirisi would take money from the Clintons. Oh well, what can you say. We are screwed.
Hey Sean,
What is the difference between this fund raiser and the one for Amy last year with President Clinton that netted $500,000? Is it possible to give me an answer that is NOT tired old DFL laden drivel?
Well to start with I think (IIRC) I paid a hundred dollars to see Bill Clinton speak (if that much).
FYI $100 (less than) $1000
(Edited because I think my coding didn’t recognize an empty less than sign, as it expected it to contain html. So I changed it to (less than) )
Your point? This event is being held in a much smaller venue where they do not have the luxury of being able to open to hundreds of low dollar tickets. People paid a lot of money at that fund raiser to have their picture taken with President Clinton.
Thats a pretty horrible excuse there GOPGal — in the interest of giving as many people as possible the opportunity to see Bill Clinton the DFL went out the way to make the fundraiser with him at least marginally affordable (and not all that unaffordable when you figure the $50 PCR program). Sure, people could get more access to Bill Clinton with bigger checks, but the simple fact of the matter is that average people could go listen to Bill Clinton talk, shake his hand and get a quick photo snapped with him (you just had to wait in line as he was leaving) for a 100 dollars.
Are you about done now? Sean
I think gaggal is on to something, have a free event with Bush, open to anyone, and let him speak without a telaprompter or script. You know, straight from the heart. Have it open in as large a venue as possible and take questions from everyday citizens about the issues that are affecting them. I think that would be spendid.
Sean blundered: “I don’t think Mike Ciresi is a billionaire.”
You, nor I, nor anyone else can be sure because Ceresi refuses to acknowledge the actual amount that he bilked Blue Cross\Blue Shield customers (like yours truly) and the tax payers of the state of Minnesota for.
It’s his, it’s under his matress and he ain’t talking about it.
the actual amount that he bilked Blue Cross\Blue Shield customers (like yours truly) and the tax payers of the state of Minnesota for.
You’re suggesting he broke the law? What law and how come no charges were brought forth? No, what you’re doing is talking BS with nothing to back it up. It’s complete nonsense but that’s ok, it’s not just what you do, it’s who you are.
Anyone can go and see the President as well for free, any president. They are called official White House events.
No Dick, tort reform’s poster boy had Skippy Humphrey running legal interference for him..this heist didn’t break any laws.
‘Course…
The crime that Michael Vick is going to be doing time for was legal too at one time…it’s all about timing and influence these days.
Personally, I wouldn’t vote to put either of them into a position of power and influence…but then I’m not a lefty.
Hey Sean,
Nice try. I’ve seen the President at least a dozen times without paying anything. Tens of thousands of other Minnesotans saw him too without paying anything. In 2004 alone, he came to Duluth, St. Cloud, Mankato, Rochester (twice), Minneapolis and St. Paul (twice) where nobody had to pay. I’ve seen the President only one time where I had to pay and that was $100 and in 2002. I’ve been invited to the White House Christmas parties twice and I’ve never donated more than $100 to anyone.
I just wonder if you’ll have the vapors when Bill and Hillary charge a couple of grand to appear with Franken or Ciresi. I’m sure you won’t even mention it on this site when it happens.
“Nice try. I’ve seen the President at least a dozen times without paying anything. Tens of thousands of other Minnesotans saw him too without paying anything.”
Yeah, just make sure you aren’t wearing the wrong shirt.
Ciresi’s net worth, according to filed disclosure documents, is 26.7 million.
When the Bush/Cheney campaign was in Rochester in 2004, the rally was open to the Public, yeah!!! You had to have a special ticket to get in and be of the Republican Party. He was here stumping for GOP candidates in the area as well as for his re-election. He attracted about 7,000.
In 2004 when Bush stopped in the Mankato area, Tim Walz was able to get in, amid protest by the Secret Service after he showed his Military ID card after just returning from a year in Italy with his Guard Unit in support of operation Enduring Freedom, said he would be watched for any misbehavior after being asked by the Secret Service if he supported the President and his policies. Tim said that as a Soldier, he had “the right as an American Citizen to see his CIC.”. A couple of students he had with him were not permitted in because one of them had a John Kerry sticker in his wallet when asked to present a valid ID. The students, along with gwen, had to stay on the bus.
Not all political rallies are open to the public depending on the purpose of the rally. Same with Fundraisers.
To Chris:
It is amusing how repubs act like it is a crime to be wealthy and be a democrat.
One way to get rich in America is to find something you love to do, something you believe in, and do it well. This is how Ceresi and Franken earned their money. Good for them!
Norm Coleman is not rich. Maybe because he has devoted his life to pretending to be whatever he thought was the current fashionable personality?
kathy,
Was the John Kerry rally in Rochester open to the public or did you need a ticket to get in? Answer: you needed a ticket to get in. Were Republican supporters given tickets by the DFL? Answer: No. Moreover, when a small group of people gathered across the street a couple of hours before the Kerry rally to protest, three guys wearing AFL CIO shirts came over and elbowed a couple of the protestors in the ribs - including a 65 year old guy.
Also, your story about Walz isn’t quite right. I was in Mankato both when the tickets were distributed and when the kids and Walz were not allowed in the event. The Secret Service denied Walz entry because he did not have a ticket in his name. The Secret Service requires anyone and everyone to provide their date of birth and Social Security number in advance of attending a rally with the President or a Presidential candidate. This has been the policy of the Secret Service since the assassination attempt on President Reagan and applies to Republican Presidents as well as Democrats.
All rallies are open to the public, but you have to have tickets to get in and yes the political parties want the tickets to go to supporters. What’s wrong with that?
According to this article in the strib, the Austins are new to politics:
“Four years ago, when Eden Prairie hearing-aid magnate Bill Austin was asked to describe himself, he said he was “somewhat apolitical.”
He also said he has been offered a billion dollars to sell Starkey Labs.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1373593.html
What motivates them as Repubs today? Do Bill and Tani Austin have children? I looked at various articles, and could not find this information. If they do, it could explain their conversion to the repub cause of protecting billionaire families from taxation.
Taxes on a 1 billion dollar estate will be, and should be, huge. It makes a few hundred thousand dollars in political contributions nothing more than a drop in the bucket and a perhaps a good investment to boot!
The thing here is that political rallies are most definitely expected to be just that, political!!
When it is a White House event it is different, anyone can get in if they want to. If you are causing a scene then yes for the safety of the president you will be thrown out!!!
The story of the college kids is not accurate at all, I was standing right there with the Secret Service when they were denied entry, they had liberal t-shirts on, were hostile to even the secret service and when their tickets were taken away then pulled out Kerry signs and started screaming obscenities about the president and started their own impromptu Kerry rally, it was obvious that was what they were planning to do during Bush’s speech. How is this different than a bunch of Union thugs strong arming any Republicans at a DFL event? Nothing!
Re:
“Moreover, when a small group of people gathered across the street a couple of hours before the Kerry rally to protest, three guys wearing AFL CIO shirts came over and elbowed a couple of the protestors in the ribs - including a 65 year old guy.”
This would be assault. Is there a police report? Was there an arrest?
Was there video? Please give us some references, and evidence.
Even if this happened, which I doubt, it is not representative of Democrats. Do you think the “God Hates Fags” wing of the republican party that protests at military funerals represents all republicans?
Bob,
As a matter of fact, the Rochester police were right there. They grabbed the two union thugs by the collar and threw them in a police car and drove them away. Moreover, incidents like this happened a number of times in 2004, including at the Minnesota State Fair. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007865.php
Protests done well are powerful, done poorly they do damage to the cause they are trying to promote. The ones organized around the civil rights movement of the 05s and 60s were powerful because the peaceful determination of the protesters allowed the segrigationists to be seen for what they were, violent bigots. Most of those taking place these days are done poorly done in that they are either somewhat violent or simply so shallow or hypocritical as to be ridiculous.
The violent gorilla tactics used by some of those involved in the G8 and world bank protests seeped into some of the pre-war anti-war protests and it takes very few rotten actors to spoil the whole bunch. Democratic supporters protesting a candidate raising campaign funds with high priced dinner with a sitting politician is about as hypocritical as it gets. I’d suggest supporters of either party do a little work cleaning up your own house before you get too huffy about the other guys. There is a valid reason most of the country has a “pox on both your of houses” view of the two major parties.
Well if Powerline says it, it must be true. I mean they have no interest in being a rightwing propaganda site. And by the way, didn’t that picture of the little girl crying just break your heart. Actually, Powerline couldn’t fact check themselves out of a paper bag. They lie, misrepresent, dissemble, out and out make shit up to further their political directives.
Today’s Washington Post carried an interesting piece fomr a White House manual on deterring protestors,or at least, keeping those smelly type (hello, gopgal) out of sight:
“Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. Any anti-Bush demonstrators who manage to get in anyway should be shouted down by ‘rally squads’ stationed in strategic locations. And if that does not work, they should be thrown out.”
This manual was released as a part of a lawsuit brought by two people in West Virginia, arrested for refusing to cover anti-Bush shirts. The White House refuses to comment, because the manual is an issue in two other lawsuits. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101662.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
No one is addressing my main point, which is if you want to, you can go and see the president for free at official WH events. You are damn straight that you will be thrown out if you are disruptive, in this time the secret service will not take any chances.
If you act like a normal human being and go to listen to the president than you will have no problems. I know a lot of dems have some problems acting like normal human beings.
One side note, I have met many politicians on both sides of the aisle including both presidents Bush and Clinton having not donated anything, as well as Senator Clinton not donating anything, I was both civil and friendly to any Dems I have met and was able to hold conversations with them…
“All rallies are open to the public, but you have to have tickets to get in and yes the political parties want the tickets to go to supporters. What’s wrong with that?”
Maybe that it isn’t all that public then?
From the invitation only Social Security ‘Town Halls’ on this President doesn’t like the public to get in the way of his message. Sean
Exerpt from story “White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters”
Link here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101662_pf.html
To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create “rally squads” of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with “favorable messages.” Squads should be placed in strategic locations and “at least one squad should be ‘roaming’ throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems,” the manual says.
“These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators,” it says. “The rally squad’s task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”
Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: “If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator’s effect.”
The manual adds in bold type: “Remember — avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap!” And it suggests that advance staff should “decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone.”
So the President’s staff uses protest type tactics to deal with protest tactics why is this strange or wrong? Every major candidate is doing whatever they can to control their message at every moment. Bill Clinton was able to do this with a great deal of charm and a very quick wit. Bush is using foot soldiers to do the same thing, apparently in these cases in a nonviolent manor. The results are the same in either case.
Except that the President is not a candidate any more. There is a big difference between what a candidate does at a rally, and how the President should face the people he governs.
So those running for office have the right to obfuscate and spin but an office holder at the end of the constitutional limit of their service has to suddenly become honest and forthright? Please, every politician’s job is to win reelection for either themselves or others of their party at every moment they are breathing. If it is wrong for a sitting president to do this then it is wrong for anyone running for any office.
What did I say that implied a right to “obfuscate and spin”? I’m saying that yes, a candidate for office will want to “control the message,” but a President has a different function.
The voters’ tolerance of obfuscation and spinning … that’s a different matter entirely.
You implied it by saying there was a different standard for candidate than for an office holder. If an office holder must be forthright available then by contrast a candidate must be different. My main point was all politicians are always candidates. If not for themselves then for their parties. That is, unfortunately, always their primary responsibility.
Should an office holder do this?
“Chairman Waxman writes to federal agencies requesting documents about their involvement in White House “asset deployment” meetings held to discuss the use of federal resources to promote the reelection of President Bush and Republicans in Congress.
Agencies receiving this request: Departments of Justice, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Labor, State, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, General Services Administration, United States Agency for International Development, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.”
Story here. “How Rove Directed Federal Assets for GOP Gains” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/18/AR2007081801182_pf.html
Chris O’Lielly,
If I recall correctly, you told me that you were personally assaulted by a couple of guys “wearing AFL- CIO shirts” here in the comments at MN Publius a couple of months ago. Is that true?
Why not tell that story here, instead of this:
“Moreover, when a small group of people gathered across the street a couple of hours before the Kerry rally to protest, three guys wearing AFL CIO shirts came over and elbowed a couple of the protestors in the ribs - including a 65 year old guy.”
Are you the 65 year old guy?
Just asking.
“Why hasn’t Ciresi or Franken donated all of their money too the poor?” What a dumb statement…aren’t you Neocons done with that boring line yet? And it’s “to the poor.” You’re such an airhead, Chris…now go take a walk and get rid of your big belly…