QUESTION 2: Why Is This Almost a Secret?

From the Washington Times:

Lobbyists have given more to Democrats

By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 17, 2006

Democrats have taken more money from lobbyists than Republicans during the past 15 years, according to an independent analysis of campaign contributions.
    Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than $53 million from lobbyists while Republicans have taken more than $48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
    Data provided by the nonpartisan group also shows that when Democrats controlled Congress in the early 1990s, they consistently hauled in more than 70 percent of the town’s lobbyist money. The group is a leading critic of Texas Republican Rep. Tom DeLay’s ties to lobbyists.
    “When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans,” said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Now that the tables are turned there is parity between the two parties.”
    Last year, for instance, Republicans took in 55 percent of the lobbyist money, which roughly corresponds to their majority share in Congress.
    Mr. Nick said the figures “take the wind out of Democrat sails” for their charge that Republicans have ushered in a “culture of corruption” that breeds extensive ties to lobbyists.
    Democrats do not dispute the data, but accuse Republicans of operating at the behest of the lobbyists who fund their campaigns.
    “Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they have not only taken more money from lobbyists, they have given everything they can give to lobbyists,” said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
    “I’ll personally give ten bucks to anyone who can come up with an example of major legislation the GOP Congress has passed that didn’t do a favor for one of its special interest donors.”
    Democrats also point to the overall lobbying industry, which has exploded in recent years.

(Aside: How confident is someone when they put only $10 on the line?)

I think the Democrat argument is “we take lobbyist money, but it doesn’t affect OUR votes like it does theirs.” Uh-huh. Then tell me why Delaware Senator Joe Biden (D-MBNA until they were bought, now D-Bank of America), who is a consumer advocate and self-styled populist in just about every other area, voted FOR Bankruptcy “Reform” last year. It couldn’t possibly be the political contributions from MBNA and others in the financial services industry, could it? Of course not. (/sarcasm)

By now it’s clear that the Enquirer Invisibler doesn’t care that what was presented to them, and what they essentially reported, as a fair, open, and honest process by the Hamilton County GOP Executive Committee at its endorsement meeting on February 9 was shown to be anything but that on Monday, with the documentation to prove it.

But getting played by the local GOP is nothing compared to the fact that there was not a single word in the paper’s print edition on Saturday, nor has there been anything at its “Politics Extra” blog, about the explosive and well-documented charges, originally reported in Mother Jones roughly 40 hours ago, that the state and/or national Democratic Party derailed Paul Hackett’s US Senate run in Ohio by conducting a whisper campaign that he committed war crimes during his service in Iraq.

So The Invisibler is an equal-opportunity ignorer. Short of starting up another paper or a comprehensive online equivalent, nothing can be done to change that. To find out what’s really going on in local and Ohio politics, we’ll just have to get used to working harder than we should have to by going to the other newspapers in the state and visiting the various blogs. It’s the Invisibler’s loss — if they care. A blogger with a story to break will have to figure out how to work around the Invisibler, and forget about working through it.

The sad thing is that in the Information Age, the casual news consumer in Greater Cincinnati is, in my opinion, less well served by its local mainstream media in print, radio, and television than during any time I can recall.
_______________________

UPDATE: An Instapundit comment on the Cartoon Jihad has direct applicability to the Enquirer’s non-performance, especially on the Hackett war-crimes whispers, which may represent the dirtiest intraparty campaign trick ever (anyone who can cite a worse one, e-mail me):

They keep forgetting that it’s their job to tell us stuff, not to decide what we shouldn’t be told.

Someone suggested that the aggressive Bush takeout of McCain in South Carolina on values issues in 2000 might be comparable. Nope — not even in the same zip code.

Also in 2000, David Hackworth, though this isn’t documented at his Wiki entry, went on mid-level conservative talk shows and wrote a few columns (one at World Net Daily) accusing McCain of committing treason while he was captive in North Vietnam. No GOP presidential candidate made any use of the claims of Hackworth, who died in May 2005.

So Why Can’t Former Soldiers and the Families of Fallen Soldiers Speak Out?

Powerline has been on the revealing story during the past few days (here, here, here, here, here, and here; HT Hugh Hewitt).

The essence? Soldiers’ families and former soldiers, with the help of an organization, Progress for America and its Voter Fund, a (gasp!) conservative 527 organization analogous to but nowhere near the size of moveon.org, whose mission is to (oh no!) “level the playing field for issue advertisements,” have put a together two videos (”Midwest Heroes” — downloads in various formats available at link) that have been playing on Minnesota TV.

One of the videos (”Heroes”) has testimonials from soldiers who have returned, and hammers hard on the linkage between Al Qaeda’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks, the USS Cole bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and (heaven forbid) our efforts to put down Al Qaeda in Iraq. The other (”Remember”) includes expressions of support for the war effort from family members of, by my count, six soldiers killed in Iraq.

Nick Coleman, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, objects, as do others in the local press and at supposedly (but not actually) non-partisan organizations, to the content and (naturally) the funding source. So does the local Democratic Farm Labor party (DFL - Minnesota’s name for Democrats), which also wants them taken off the air. KTSP in Minneapolis caved, using as a fig leaf the videos’ criticisms of media coverage which, it harrumphed, isn’t valid about them. That linked article also say that “DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez called a news conference to call the ad ‘un-American, untruthful and a lie.’”

Those who object are basically telling us that we must rely exclusivly on the WORMs (Worn-Out Reactionary Media, known to most as the Mainstream Media) not only to tell us what is happening in Iraq, but also to be the sole arbiters of the truth. No attempt to offset free WORM wall-to-wall coverage of one dead soldier’s mother’s every move should be allowed — even if someone is willing to pay for it.

Rightwing Nuthouse’s reaction is that Minnesota liberal legend Hubert Humphrey, who narrowly lost the 1968 presidential election to Richard Nixon, must be weeping in his grave. Indeed. But why should we be surprised that a party whose leaders will eliminate a party insurgent by conducting a whisper campaign accusing him of war crimes wants to prevent us from hearing the testimonials of former soldiers and fallen soldiers’ families who disagree with them?

From Defend America (HT Camp Katrina):

(more…)

Note: This post has been carried forward to Saturday, February 18 pending final resolution.
________________________

CMB means Cover My Butt. The first entries are from Saturday, February 11.

This Morning, I inadvertently became aware of an issue relating to Bob McEwen’s congressional campaign.

At 1:40 this afternoon, I sent out an e-mail to his communications coordinator and another member of his campaign requesting that the first person to see the message call me, without identifying the problem, which requires detailed explanation, and which is why I requested that the return communication be by phone.

As of this moment (2:00 PM), I am awaiting a response.

At 5:20 PM, I received a call from the communications coordinator, and explained the situation until it was understood. He promised that the situation would be remedied so that no one else can have the capability of taking advantage of the things I inadvertently stumbled into.

So I consider the matter resolved.

If there is some other attempt to recharacterize the nature of my communication, well, that’s why I have done this CMB post.

Update, Feb. 17: So this is how the folks at the McEwen blog handled things (I am user hughhewitt):

1. MKH210 Says:
February 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pm

Tom Blumer was trying to hack the McEwen Blog.

2. Webmaster Says:
February 11th, 2006 at 7:53 pm

I don’t see what he is talking about. My guess is that he thought this was a private blog or something.

3. hughhewitt Says:
February 16th, 2006 at 10:31 pm

Tom Blumer found a weakness in the McEwen blog and reported it immediately to Mike Harlow as documented here:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=1437

Any representation to the contrary is false:

4. Webmaster Says:
February 16th, 2006 at 10:47 pm

Any claim that there is a security flaw on this site is false. If there is, you have the webmaster’s permission to exploit it for demonstration purposes only…

Thanks Tom.

Webmaster

In response, early AM on November 17, I sent this e-mail to the Communications Coordinator, as I could not find an e-mail addy for the webmaster:

I was unable to find an e-mail address for your webmaster, so I have to send this to you.

I did not want to post it as a comment because someone else might see it as a roadmap to go further than I know how.

(next three paragraphs removed due to compromising info)

Please call and verify that you have received this message and are addressing its substance.

Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

PS. I updated my BizzyBlog post for this information but redacted everything that could be construed as compromising info.

+++++++++++++++++

Body of message intended for webmaster (with potentially compromising information removed):

Webmaster, I have now been able to xxxxxxxxxxxx, not just xxxxxxxxx, using a xxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I appear to be unable to xxxxx, so in that sense it’s not a security flaw, but the fact that I can xxxxxxx.

Actually that’s not true. I can xxxxxxx, and I have.

None of this will be visible to site visitors who don’t register, but it still seems like a weakness for xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to be able to xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

By contrast, I have attempted to do the same at xxxxxxxxx and am unable to do so, because I have no visibility to the xxxxxxxxx (and I do here).

Now, let’s go one step further. I can xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

I could go on, but I hope I’ve made at least a teeny tiny point. I’m assuming you are able to xxxxxxxxx.

I have no interest whatsoever in exploiting anything, I am simply concerned about what I found, and hope you take this message in that spirit.

NEXT: Called Communications Coordinator briefly on the afternoon of Feb. 17. Said he hasn’t seen e-mail message yet. He promised to pass on to webmaster.

UPDATE, 12:30 AM, Feb. 18: The Webmaster in a comment at the draft post essentially assured me that what I was concerned about was a feature and not a security concern. Okay, I’m not sure I totally agree, but it’s his responsibility.

My specific final comment was (without revealing substance of concerns):

Webmaster, if it doesn’t bother you it doesn’t bother me. This is a xxxxxxxxxxxxx and it seems to have potential for xxxxxxxxxxxx.

I tend to be overcareful with these types of things.

So I’ll leave it be and hope you all don’t experience any difficulties.

Regards,
Tom
BizzyBlog.com