by baldilocks

At Politico, here’s a profile on the ugly history of Portland, Oregon.

The fact that Portland erupted as the epicenter in Trump-era political violence in the U.S. is, in a certain sense, surprising. A liberal nirvana, a crunchy, weed-and-hops city where Republicans and plastic bags alike have been all but evicted, Portland has embodied and outpaced many of the urban trends of the early 21st century: gentrification and co-ops, food trucks and footbridges, transitions to a bike-and-pedestrian economy. It is, as a conspicuous show has encapsulated, a progressive paradise.

And yet, as many within and without the city have begun realizing, Portland is a town leavened with a history of rampant racial strife. As the whitest major American city, Portland blossomed in the lone state that constitutionally barred blacks from living there through the 19th century, that acted as one of the primary concentration centers for incarcerating American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II, that redlined as severely as any major metropolis elsewhere. That in 1922 saw its chief of police posing alongside hooded Ku Klux Klan membersThat brought Jim Crow to the Pacific shoreline.

It’s the type of legal legacy, the type of nod-and-wink encouragement of white supremacy, that not only welcomed any number of Confederate families to relocate to the region in the aftermath of the Civil War, but that, toward the close of the 20th century, saw neo-Nazi and skinhead groups begin to extend their tendrils through the area. Before “Portlandia,” there was “Skinhead City.” In the mid-1980s, skinheads began marching through downtown, hauling bats, pipes and axes. Not long after, the city birthed Volksfront, a neo-Nazi contingent that eventually expanded internationally. In 1988, a trio of skinheads bashed Mulugeta Seraw, an Ethiopian student, to death; the three all received prison sentences, with one tabbed as a “prisoner of war” by other white supremacy groups.

There’s much, much more reportage of Antifa’s present-day violence and advocacy thereof. Personally, I had no idea how bad things are up there, but it’s obvious that Portland mayhem is nothing new.

It will get better; but worse will come first.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

Non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, have been around for decades. Politico just discovered them, now that Donald Trump is the President Elect, complete with a Grumpy Trump photo:

Trump transition team members sign non-disclosure agreements

Trump transition team members had to sign a code of ethics with a pretty significant lobbying ban, but they’ve also had to sign a non-disclosure agreement to make certain they keep all of their work confidential, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO.

The agreement legally bars transition staffers from disclosing info about major portions of the transition work, like policy briefings, personnel material, donor info, fundraising goals, budgets, contracts, or any draft research papers. It also demands that if anyone on the team suspects a colleague of leaking material, he or she must tell transition team leadership. And it gives the Trump team grounds to tell those who run afoul of the rules: “You’re fired.”

That’s usually the case when you don’t honor an NDA: you lose your job.

Politico asserts,

This practice of using a non-disclosure agreement dates back to the Trump campaign and even his businesses.

Well, heavens to Betsy!

Politico’s staff and writers may not be familiar with NDAs, but they are common practice in the private sector, and have been for years. There are jobs where I had to sign an NDA in order to apply, due to the sensitive nature of the job. To this day I still abide by those NDAs.

Politico’s unnamed “good government experts” bemoan

the way Trump’s prolific use of non-disclosure agreements in business and the campaign could hurt government transparency if the pattern continued. the way Trump’s prolific use of non-disclosure agreements in business and the campaign could hurt government transparency if the pattern continued.

even while they admit that (emphasis added),

the Trump transition’s application page indicates: “One should assume that all of the information provided during this process is ultimately subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act.”

No NDA is going to protect you from FOIA. No NDA places you above the law, either. You don’t need to have a law degree to know that.

However, it makes you wonder if Politico and their “good government experts” are displeased that they can not easily place one of their employees in Trump’s transition team.

The guys at Jezebel (look them up, I’m not linking) are frazzled and say “this is not what a democracy looks like. This is something far worse.”

I wonder where their outrage was while the Dems locked out the GOP when they passed Obamacare.

BONUS:
November 6, 2015: Clinton Signed NDA Laying OutCriminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info, but in her case it was meaningless.

faustaFausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

The questions that have been asked so far in this debate, illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. And if you look at the questions, Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do the math? John Kasich, can you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues —

Ted Cruz CNBC Debate Oct 29th 2015

Last week Ted Cruz has his single biggest moment in the GOP race to this point when during the CNBC debate he called out the bias of the MSM against the GOP contrasting it with how Democrats have been treated by said media and suggested that perhaps the people asking the questions of the person seeking the GOP nomination should have voted in such a primary at least once.

During the week that followed we heard all kinds of snark suggesting that if the GOP couldn’t handle CNBC they couldn’t handle the white house, they were called whiners, complainers and attacked by press from CNN MSNBC and even Megyn Kelly of Fox news.

However on Friday we had a 24 hour period where the Media did their best to make his point for him.

Item 1.  The only way a Black Man escapes the Democrat Plantation is Death

Months ago just after he announced I covered a Ben Carson Q & A in NH and ask him about the media 180 on him since he critiqued the president at the Prayer Breakfast.

at the time Carson’s prospects were considered slim and none and slim was not in town. Well a few weeks after he finished 2nd in the 603 alliance caucus of confirmed NH voters and just a few days after a Quinnipiac poll showed that he was drawing nearly 20% of te black vote, enough to make a Democrat victory impossible in a general election. The media decided to go after him in a Big way.

Politico put out hit piece on Carson claiming he was lying about some childhood & teenage stories. Before you knew it every single media outlet was piling on as illustrated by this image via the Rush Limbaugh site:

Journalistic-Malpractice

and this statement

See? From the moment I told you about this, this is exactly what I told you The Politico’s purpose was. They want you to think that Carson never went to West Point but that he says he did. “Politico published a piece Friday claiming Carson’s campaign ‘admits fabricating’ the fact that he applied and was admitted to West Point.” So they go to the West Point spokesbabe today and she says, “No, we had no application. He didn’t apply, and he certainly didn’t attend here.”

So they clearly want ignorant, impressionable, uninformed readers to think that Ben Carson’s out there writing in his book that he went to West Point and that The Politico today has uncovered the fact that he didn’t. And do you want to know how successful this is? I’m not gonna mention any names here. In the opening segment of this program, I’m going through exactly what I just told you here, and somebody on the other side of the glass shouted to me, “It doesn’t matter, he’s toast! The truth doesn’t matter. He’s toast.”

And this might be true if Carson was a regular pol but if you think a fellow who has spent hours fighting for the lives of kids considered doomed was going to just give up they were quite mistaken. Carson called the story “an outright lie” American Elephant put it well

and lo and behold within a few hours Politico had already edited their story (without mentioning the edits) and CNN was putting out a story titled “Where Politico’s Ben Carson ‘Scoop’ Went Wrong

The rewritten article did not initially include a correction or editor’s note, although a note was later added on Friday. Politico again said it “stands by its reporting.”

Of course by the time these corrections were promulgated the low info voters who don’t follow the news or see the corrections will have the background noise of “Ben Carson Lied” added into things “everybody knows.”

Take a look at the press conference below

And remember the primary subject of these questions are concerning a dinner he attended at age 18.

Now some might say, hey this guy is running for president of the United States, this isn’t softball, he’s got to demonstrate that he can stand up and take it.

However that very evening we saw a very different press event for Democrats…

2. MSNBC invites the Hillary Clinton & Co over to play  softball

At 8 PM Friday evening MSNBC broadcast the First in the south Democrat forum featuring Martin O’Malley, BErnie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

The Contrast was quite striking.

Unlike the combative CNBC, Fox & CNN Debates the Democrat Candidates appeared one at a time without worrying about being challenged by their opponents

Unlike the CNBC debate and the Scrum around Ben Carson earlier in the day. Rather than facing confrontational questions from political opponents like Ben Carson and the GOP CNBC debaters did the Democrat Candidates faced questions from Rachel Maddow the most liberal of hosts on MSNBC all based on affirming their worldview rather than challenging it.

And while Mr. Carson’s words at a dinner at age 18 were considered relevant neither this story which broke this morning:

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.

Nor he contradictory explanations concerning the cause of the Benghazi attack.

An email released by the House Select Committee on Benghazi Saturday suggests Hillary Clinton’s State Department was advised to tell two different stories about what sparked the 2012 Benghazi terror attack: one to the U.S., and another in Libya.

Both which took place while secretary of state in this administration were not newsworthy enough to elicit a question on the topic from Miss Maddow. Here is one of the questions

 

Now you might say that it’s the job of the press to examine the words of a top tier GOP candidate like Ben Carson and you might also say that at the Democrat Forum Rachel Maddow asked some questions of real substance, particularly the one on the tech industry & in both cases you would be right…

…HOWEVER if I was a candidate like Ted Cruz, who was roundly attacked for contrasting the way Democrats and Republicans are treated by the press and ridiculed by Megyn Kelly for suggesting that perhaps the GOP should have it’s debates moderated by people who actually vote in GOP elections the next time someone questioned either of these statements and asked why he’s spending his time talking about media coverage I’d hand them a DVD of the Media coverage of November 6th 2015 and answer:

THIS is why.

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $4400

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

Ben Franklin:  You seem a little distracted, Mr. Adams.
John Adams:  I had thought that you were with us.
Ben Franklin: As I am, as I am.
John Adams:But not enough to come out and say so.
Ben Franklin: Politics is the art of the possible.  What did you get by opposing the motion? It was carried with our without you.  All you did was make enemies and make yourself feel better, of course.
John Adams:Do you not believe in saying what you think?
Ben Franklin: No, I’m very much against it.

John Adams Independence 2008

Did anybody catch this interesting bit of misdirection in this Politico piece:

Up until moments before Friday’s vote, Pelosi hadn’t told a soul how she was going to vote on TAA or Trade Promotion Authority, the fast-track trade law Obama was seeking.

To the untrained eye that suggest that Nancy Pelosi was undecided on the trade bill but consider this:

On Thursday, Pelosi and Boehner huddled on the House floor and swapped vote counts, according to sources in both parties. Pelosi said her numbers were very bad for TAA. Boehner said he thought Republicans could produce 100 votes, three times as many as they usually do for the bill. Pelosi shot back “How about 150?”

Now tell me if Nancy Pelosi was undecided on the trade bills, why would she bother counting the vote, particularly with Boehner who was trying to get the bill passed.  Then there is this:

So just before noon, with debate already underway on the House floor, Pelosi picked up the phone and called Boehner to inform him that a must-pass component of the White House trade package was going to fail. It was the second such warning from Pelosi to Boehner in two days.

“Are you still going ahead?” Pelosi asked him, according to sources familiar with the call. “Are you going to pull the bill?”

Also consider how he framed her opposition in the closing speech:

“We have an opportunity to slow down,” Pelosi said. “Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for America’s workers.”

That speech gave the green light for Democrats to vote against this bill and also gave cover for Hillary Clinton to say something:

“Here’s what I think should happen now,” Clinton said. “The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible and if we don’t get it, there should be no deal.”

The Politico piece implied that Nancy Pelosi had been undecided on this bill until finally braking with the president.  The truth is she wanted this bill and wanted this bill bad enough to warn Boehner that he didn’t have the votes in the hopes it could be pulled until they managed to find the needed vote them.  Her call for a “better” deal was not a heads up to the

But it was a signal to the White House that she is willing to try again if they can fake a tiny tweak so she can claim that the deal has been “improved” and if there is the slightest chance that the White House can spin it she will be back ready to vote with them.

Politico would like the reader to think that Nancy Pelosi made a tortured decision to oppose the president based on principle, what she did was just politics, politics that Dr. Franklin would have recognized in a second.

Update: While Politico was busy spinning Nancy Pelosi, Jake Tapper & his staff are unspining Hillary Clinton
*****************************

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

There are two things that never cease to amaze me.

First that the left keeps telling the right this:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich will roll out “responsible” tax plans that protect against revenue gaps. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Arizona’s new Republican governor are delaying big dreams of nixing the income tax as they face budget shortfalls. And Missouri Republicans, once jealous of their neighbor Kansas’ massive cuts, are thankful they trimmed less.

Call it the Brownback effect.

What’s the Brownback effect?  The decision to seriously cut taxes including eliminating taxes on small business and apparently a lot of people are trying to contrast themselves to this:

In Missouri, Republicans like Kraus proudly noted that while Kansas eliminated taxes on small businesses, they did only a 25 percent tax deduction to lower their taxes. And their income tax cuts were much smaller, he said: only half a percent, phased in over five years starting in 2017.

“We’re trying to protect the core levels of funding so we don’t disturb … state government,” he said.

Because God forbid big Government actually become smaller.  But here’s the thing that really jars my gears, why are these guys all trying to be not Brownback?

The left poured money into Kansas, activists entered the state in their full force a year before the election targeting Brownback, in fact many on the left expected Brownback to be the reason why Pat Roberts would lose re-election because of the collateral damage for those ousting the governor who constantly behind in the polls.  Take a look at the Wikipedia chart of polls was behind in the polls the whole time.  There were 9 polls in the course of the year where he was ahead vs 30 that showed him behind and the media & left were feeling their oats:

NPR:

the governor’s mansion has switched parties often in the past 60 years, and Democrats may take it back this November.

Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is running for re-election, and for months now, polls have shown him consistently running well behind his Democratic challenger.

This isn’t your typical incumbent-in-trouble story, though. In office, Brownback has done exactly what he said he would. But many, many voters aren’t happy, including a lot of Republicans.

Big tax cuts that Brownback championed have left Kansas with a serious budget problem.

Washington Post:

Gail Jamison, a lifelong Republican, voted for Sam Brownback for governor in 2010 believing he would restore school funding that had been greatly reduced by the recession.

Four years later, she has joined with more than 100 prominent Republicans in publicly throwing their support behind Brownback’s Democratic opponent — because, she said, Brownback pursued a hefty tax cut for the rich that deprived schools of needed resources.

“I am shocked by what’s happened,” said Jamison, president of the Board of Education in this Wichita suburb. “I find it personally a very extreme stance.”

KSHB:

Davis retains strong leads among moderate voters and Independents, while taking 27 percent of the Republican vote from Brownback. He also has double-digit leads in the state’s two largest television markets, making a Brownback comeback a more difficult and potentially more expensive proposition.

Susan Page called Brownback’s record as Governor “Devastating” In fact the Daily Kos said Brownback’s ads:  “reeks of desperation.”  Yet note this line from the Politico story hitting Kansas’ policies:

By contrast, Kansas’ cuts to education as a result of the revenue hit was a contentious issue in Brownback’s near defeat to Democrat Paul Davis last month.

the key word in that sentence is NEAR.

Do you know what another word for a “near defeat” is?  VICTORY!

Even with a libertarian candidate grabbing 4% of the vote in the end Brownback still won by 3 1/2 pts, yet like with the government shutdown stuff the left continues to insist that the all of this will destroy the GOP, even as it failed to do so.

That’s pretty amazing, but not as amazing as one other fact.  That some on the right continue to fall for it.

When will we ever learn?

Update: GOP here is how the GOP should react when the left tells us to be so very afraid of our principles

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below.

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

I wrote about Senator McCaskill working early to establish a meme that will help her in election 2018.  Looking at this story running at the Hillary friendly site Politico  it looks like the Clinton team is playing the same game on offense with Elizabeth Warren concerning her appearance at  the Democracy Alliance an exclusive club of progressive activists with deep pockets.

How deep?  Well here is how you become a member or “Democracy Alliance Partner“:

Democracy Alliance partners, as the group calls its members, pay annual dues of $30,000 and are required to contribute a total of at least $200,000 a year to recommended groups.

Interestingly Politico seemed interested in Elizabeth Warren’s appearance there but was discouraged by security

Democracy Alliance staff and private security retained by the club stood sentry outside the basement banquet room where Warren spoke, preventing reporters from getting too close. And she avoided the media gathered for the conference by utilizing a side door to enter and exit the room.

And ignored by the Senator

POLITICO caught up with her as she made her way to a car waiting outside. But she ignored a question about whether her appearance — a closed-door speech to major donors who write huge checks, sometimes anonymously, to influence the political process — conflicted with her public denunciations of the role of conservative big money in politics.

“Excuse me,” an aide said, blocking access to Warren as she slid into the front passenger seat.

And Mrs. Clinton?

Clinton was not invited to any part of the Mandarin meeting

If I’m Hillary Clinton I’m making sure there are plenty of such stories out there & getting the hashtag #big$warren trending ASAP

I know, you’re thinking Mrs. Clinton hitting Warren on money in politics would be like me complain about someone wearing a fedora but the goal here isn’t to condemn money in politics, which the Clinton’s love so much, it’s to show progressives who might think otherwise that for all her fan base and talk of the rich when it comes to money Elizabeth Warren is no different that Hillary Clinton, just without the gravitas.

That’s the game & expect Clinton media allies to be playing it early & often.

Today on Morning Joe a fraud was perpetuated on the viewers during Mike Allen’s Politico segment.

The topic was GOP establishment strength in primaries in 2014.  Jazz Shaw touched on the subject at HotAir this weekend:

it just may turn out that McConnell is finding some room to relax. Chris McDaniel has made some gains in Mississippi, but it looks like Thad Cochran is still holding enough of a lead to feel comfortable. Of course, that primary isn’t until June and a lot can change between now and then. Milton Wolf has definitely eroded Pat Roberts’ favorability numbers in recent months, but the last polling we’ve seen still shows Roberts with a two to one advantage.

As for the long game of McConnell and Matt Bevin, well… what can you say? That 55 to 29 spread doesn’t seem to be budging.

I’ll have a lot more to say about McConnell’s CPAC  2014 later this week, but it’s certainly fair to say the Tea Party primary candidates including ones I supported like Dwayne Stovall have failed to carry the day, however the GOP establishment had one huge advantage in the 2014 primary cycle that they did not have in 2010 season. The silence of the movement’s most popular member, Senator Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz stills Wednesday 013
For those who have forgotten here is what Cruz said to the Dallas Morning News back in August:

“It is likely that I am going to stay out of incumbent primaries across the country, either supporting incumbents or opposing incumbents.”

and while the MSM called this a poke in the eye to incumbents to harm them as I said at the time

The reality is he is doing exactly the opposite.

Cruz knows better than anyone how an endorsement from the #1 Tea Party draw changes a race:

What would be the fastest way to build name recognition, to raise money for a run when the interests in the state are afraid of being on the wrong side of the sitting senator in the room?

A Ted Cruz endorsement.

Cruz’s deliberate inaction was the single biggest gift he could give to the GOP establishment during the primary season and senators from McConnell on down know it.

On Morning Joe that wasn’t the reality that was discussed when Mike Allen came on for the Politico Playbook segment

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Watching that segment a viewer would have no idea Cruz announced months ago that he was staying out of incumbent primaries this cycle.  That a sin of omission but at the very end of the segment  Mike Allen crosses the line from ignoring the lede to outright deception.   After Joe Scarborough notes Cornyn’s solid primary win sans a  Cruz’s endorsement Mike Allen closes the segment saying.

and then senator Cruz courageously endorsed Senator Cornyn the next day.

and it’s not just the use of the mockingly false adverb, but how he does so.  I’ve cut the segment to the final 25 seconds look at Mike Allen’s face as he sells the line.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yeah I know it’s MSNBC,  yes I know Mike Allen is a Journolist guy so perhaps this kind of mendacity shouldn’t bother me…

…but I’ve gotta tell you such a bald-faced deception of the audience is a dishonorable act  and there is at least one person on that set who that should bother a lot.

Joe Scarborough has his name on that show and I’ve already written that he makes it a point to treat his audience well, particularly at personal appearances and he’s can’t let something like that go.

It’s one thing to throw an ignorant insults as Mike Barnicle & Mika did to Sarah Palin (which Joe called them on) . That’s cheep but  in the end such insults demean the person making them more that the target.

It’s quite another thing for a regularly featured guest on the TV show that’s bears your name to under the guise of news,  misrepresent and misinform the audience to the actions of a sitting senator. That’s unfair to the senator, unfair to the viewers and unfair to the host who welcomes you to the show.

I was pleased to see in the 8 PM replay the Allen segment was cut to remove the entire conversation on the subject.  I’m also pleased it wasn’t removed from the online segment since pretending it never happened would be a second deception.

I think Allen owes Joe and the viewers an apology and  correction tomorrow or at least a clarification. You want to sell a point of view, that’s fine, we all have them, but if you are going to do so do it honestly.

**************************************************************

Weekly Goal $365
12/365 dollars

It’s Monday and we are $12 dollars toward this week’s goal of $365.

If you think our work here is worthy of your support I ask you consider hitting DaTipJar below.

 

 

With 61 more $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year.

I would ask that you do subscribe by hitting the button below.  If your finances allow it, consider choosing Hat level or better.  A subscription comes not only with exclusive commentary, but on a weekly basis you will have the opportunity to get direct access to me by phone to provide feedback or suggestions to make sure this site is worthy of your financial support and patronage.


 

Raj: Who’s this mysterious buddy you suddenly have?

Howard: Just a guy. I know a guy.

Raj: Is it Eddie Crispo?

Howard: No, I can’t tell you who it is. Stop asking.

Raj: Who else could it be? It has to be Eddie Crispo.

Howard: I know lots of dangerous people, okay?

Raj: Name one.

Howard: Eddie Crispo.

The Big Bang Theory The Precious Fragmentation 2010

Krako: Let me say something. I only saw three guys in that ship. Maybe there ain’t no more.
Capt. Kirk: There are over four hundred guys there.
Krako: That’s your story, buster.

Star Trek, A Piece of the Action 1968

If you go to Memeorandum you will find that top story linked over and over again this piece from Politico highlighting GOP disagreements.  Given the history of the media such stories are not a huge surprise, particularly from Politico but there is one thing that caught my eye:

But as the government shutdown heads into day three, a number of Republican senators privately blame the Texas freshman for contributing to the mess their party finds itself in. And now that they’re in it, they say it’s up to Cruz to help find a solution.

“It was very evident to everyone in the room that Cruz doesn’t have a strategy – he never had a strategy, and could never answer a question about what the end-game was,” said one senator who attended the meeting. “I just wish the 35 House members that have bought the snake oil that was sold could witness what was witnessed today at lunch.”

As usual these GOP senators remain unnamed and the Lonely Conservative goes after them for it:

Politico reports that a number of unnamed Republican senators are blasting Ted Cruz over the government slimdown that he inspired. They won’t go on the record, of course, because then the people they’re supposed to represent might get mad at them.

That’s as it may be but it occurs to me there might be something different at play.

The left portrays this as a massive revolt by the GOP against their conservative wing, and these senators are only being quiet to avoid the wrath of GOP primary votes.

But what if like Howard Wolowitz, who pretends he knows a bunch of dangerous people but in fact only knows Eddie Crispo, the GOP “senators” Politico is relying on as sources are not named in order to make it seem like there are more of them than there actually are?

What if the point of not naming these senators is not to protect them from the wrath of the base but to avoid yet another story of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and/or Susan Collins attacking the tea party? Such a story featuring those senators would be old news and wouldn’t get a second look from anyone but a story naming “unknown senators” can spread the anger of the base toward the entire GOP caucus while inspiring democrats to hang tough.

If I’m right then the whole, Obama/left/MSM meme of a GOP breaking apart is a house of cards. This is a real possibility.

The media would never dare admit it but I wouldn’t be shocked if the sources for the story above were Collins, Graham or McCain…

…unless it’s Eddie Crispo

Update:  Added the Star Trek quote.

I know that a lot of people are basking in the schadenfreude of Anthony Weiner being, well…being Anthony Weiner but there is a VITAL part of the story that is getting almost no play.

Weiner also allegedly promised the source a job at Politico

That is ringing alarm bells all over my head. That Anthony Weiner hasn’t lost interested in women is no surprise, that he contends he has job placement privileges at a news organization quoted daily on TV covering the political scene in DC IS

I called Politico for comment and got an answering machine so I’ve sent them the following e-mail with some questions concerning this.

Hello Olivia:

Allow me to introduce myself I am Peter Ingemi known as DaTechGuy host of DaTechGuy on DaRadio a syndicated radio talk show on the Money Matters Radio network in New England & writer of the nationally known DaTechGuy on DaRadio Blog.

I have several questions concerning the alleged statement from Anthony Weiner that he promised a young lady a job at Politico.

1. Has politico ever hired based on the request of the political figure? If so what figure and who was hired

( 1a. If “yes” has such hiring ever been at the request of a conservative political figure?
1b. If “yes” are any of said hired assigned to cover the people in question or the party of said people?)

2. Does politico have any kind of policy in place concerning hiring recommendation from the people you cover? If so what are they and if not are there any plans to create such a policy?

3. Does politico have any comment on the alleged statement that Mr. Weiner promised a politico position to a young lady in exchange for certain…considerations?

4. Does politico have an opinion on why Mr. Weiner would have the opinion that he could obtain such a position?

5. Has Anthony Weiner or his staff done any service or favor for politico so that he would believe they would owe him a favor or look favorably on such a favor if asked?

5. Does politico have a policy to insulate and separate their political staff from the people they cover on a social level?

6. Does politico have a policy concerning non work interactions between the people they cover and their reporting staff?

Thank you

Yeah I know in the e-mail I used #5 twice but I spotted that after the fact and wanted to post the exact e-mail that I sent.

I’ll let you know if they get back to me.

Update: Just got an e-mail from Oliva at Politico. the e-mail is as follows:

Thanks for reaching out. Included our story from earlier below—please see highlighted graphs.

Thanks, Olivia

The story is here, I include the “highlighted” bits from the e-mail below:

TheDirty.com this week posted a series of explicit exchanges that allegedly occurred between Weiner and an anonymous source, who is described as “a young female girl who wishes to remain Anonymous.” Posts on the site say she was 22 last summer when she and Weiner started a relationship that played out on Facebook and the social media site Formspring, as well as through phone and email conversations — he used the name “Carlos Danger” for his Yahoo account, the site said.

Their exchanges included phone sex and raunchy online messages, according to the site, which displays screenshots of some of the alleged conversations. The site says Weiner also offered to help the unnamed woman procure a blogging gig with POLITICO.

“Ok so a friend at [POLITICO] called me for ideas for a thing they are doing in swing states,” reads a screenshot of an alleged exchange between Weiner and the source, whose Facebook picture and name are blurred out.

“How can I help?” she responded.

“but do me a solid, can you hard delete all our chats here,” Weiner said before continuing, according to the post. After she agreed, he wrote, “great. So they are looking to create a panel of bloggers…can I give him your deets?”

“Absolutely!” she replied.

POLITICO Editor-In-Chief John F. Harris said he does not have any idea what Weiner is referring to, and no one he’s talked to at the organization does, either. Weiner was one of numerous congressmen invited to contribute to a now-defunct editorial feature for POLITICO called the Arena.

It occurs to me that while Mr. Harris’ statement answers some of my questions it doesn’t address them all so I replied to Olivia with the following e-mail:

Hi Olivia:

Thank you for prompt response and your link to the Politico piece. I have linked in and included the highlighted bits in my post per your e-mail.

While the statement in question answers two of my questions (3 & 4) and gives a possible answer to a 3rd it still leaves several of my questions unanswered. I shall repeat those unanswered question below:

1. Has politico ever hired based on the request of the political figure? If so what figure and who was hired

( 1a. If “yes” has such hiring ever been at the request of a conservative political figure?

1b. If “yes” are any of said hired assigned to cover the people in question or the party of said people?)

2. Does politico have any kind of policy in place concerning hiring recommendation from the people you cover? If so what are they and if not are there any plans to create such a policy?

5. Does politico have a policy to insulate and separate their political staff from the people they cover on a social level?

6. Does politico have a policy concerning non work interactions between the people they cover and their reporting staff?

I shall be happy to include your answers in any update as soon as practicable as I’m covering a live event tonight .

My best

I’ve covering James O’Keefe in NH tonight but I’ll do my best to update promptly if I get another response before it’s over.

*****************************

Olimometer 2.52

While I’m waiting to hear from Politico and as I get ready to leave to cover another story just a reminder my paycheck is what you pay me, the weekly goal is $305 and Right now I’m $239 shy of a full boat.

As Anthony Weiner is not going to arrange a paying job anytime soon I’d like to ask if you’d consider being one of the dozen people I need to kick in $20 to get me over the top this week by hitting DaTipJar below.

.

Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

Robert Stacy McCain The Weekly Newsbeast Nov 11th 2010

Trueman-Lodge: We started this place strictly as a cover, but Professor Joe turns a tidy profit.

License to Kill 1989

Reading Glenn’s Links to Althouse on Politico on the possible pay wall pay wall suggests that the lessons of Tina Brown are finally being learned on the left.

For those who have forgotten Tina Brown took over the venerable but unprofitable Newsweek in November of 2010 in its 77th year of publication.

On November 11th 2010 Stacy McCain commented on what this would mean to Ms. Brown’s financial backers:

The investors can expect to lose a crapload of cash in the process. The New Yorker reportedly lost $42 million in three years (1995-97) under Ms. Brown’s editorship. Talk lost an impressive $80 million during its two-year existence. Whatever else you might say about Tina Brown, she’s undeniably brilliant at convincing investors to lose money on her projects.

Six months later on May 17th 2011 the question of profit was brought up to Ms. Brown and she replied profit would be coming within 2 to three years. Forbes was skeptical and in an excellent impersonation of Rush Limbaugh’s 10 year Al Gore’s doomsday clock (At 2 years 261 days and counting) Stacy McCain said this:

Mark your calendars, then: Newsbeast will be in the black by May 2014 at the latest. According to Tina Brown, that is.

Well one year after that in 2012 ABC reported Newsweek/The Daily Beast lost 30 million and by the end of the year after IAC media losses increased nearly 400% Newsweek ceased publication becoming basically a blog.

Which brings us to Politico.

The Story that Politico is going to charge for content got some attention :

POLITICO today announced that it will start testing a metered subscription system in six states and internationally. For at least six months, those readers will be required to pay for content after consuming a set number of pages on the website. POLITICO will test different price points and page limits “to find the sweet spot for our readership.”

The experiment will go into effect next week in the states of Iowa, North Dakota, Vermont, Mississippi, New Mexico and Wyoming.

Interestingly enough there was another story a week before Politico started floating the Pay Wall business concerning its owner Allbritton Communications and the following announcement that it was selling some assets;

Allbritton is exploring the sale of all its television properties, including its Harrisburg-based station.

Allbritton owns eight ABC affiliates across the country, along with the popular website, Politico, which covers government and politics. Allbritton’s flagship TV station is WJLA in Washington, D.C.

Robert Allbritton, chairman and CEO of Allbritton Communications, sent a letter to its TV stations and Politico staff Wednesday.

In the letter, Allbritton, 44, wrote that he is weighing the sale of the stations as part of a strategic move to invest more resources in Politico.

Not that Politico is having a cash problem or NEEDS more assets of course as Mr. Robert Allbritton said in his letter:

POLITICO continues to carry no debt, funds all investment with operating income and will still turn a profit, again, in 2013. That is the textbook definition of a thriving, sustainable new media company.

That’s sounds pretty good, then again the only solid figures we have for Politico and profitably come from 2009 and as Harry Jaffe noted last week:

Questions abound in today’s announcement that Allbritton Communications is planning to sell its TV stations and devote its resources to growing the Politico brand.

Is Politico turning a profit?
What are the television stations worth?
How would Allbritton spend its cash in building Politico, its all-politics all-the-time digital publication?

Allbritton Communications is privately held, so it does not have to report more than it desires to make public.

Ah so according to Harry at the Washingtonian the question of “Is politico making a profit?” is an actual open question internal assertions not withstanding.

Are they actually making money? I have no idea but it’s interesting that they are selling sources of steady revenue and experimenting with a paywall at the same time. Even so they seem to be approaching this with the proper eye:

Outside of Washington, what we will look for with this experiment is whether or not we can bring in more revenue through paying subscribers than we lose as a result of any decline in traffic. This is a fairly straightforward calculation – and one that will instruct our future thinking in this area.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward cost benefit analysys but why outside Washington DC? What about inside?

..it’s highly unlikely we would ever institute a metered system in the D.C. area. The economics wouldn’t work because every company that has put a subscription system in place has seen some decrease in traffic, as you might expect. We want and need that traffic in D.C. because the desire of advertisers to reach our elite audience here is exceptionally strong.

So no Paywall for the Capital elites just for all you rubes who don’t know how to set a up a Proxy server.

Even so this is a far cry from the old model for leftist propaganda sites:

I made this point yesterday in regard to Tina Brown, who lost $80 million during two years as editor of Talk, after losing $40 million during a three-year period as editor of The New Yorker, and who has most recently pushed back the goalposts of projected profitability at the Daily Beast to somewhere between (a) three years and (b) when hell freezes over.

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

By considering revenue streams and how money is made Politico has apparently decided the whole: “Hope some rich leftist will pay the bills” isn’t enough to cut it.

As a person whose pay is dependent on his readers 60 x 20 x 12 you know I certainly have no problem with Politico trying to max out revenue in fact it’s refreshing to see an organization of the left openly practicing capitalism.

Maybe it will rub off on their reporting.