politico.comPosted Jul 30, 2012, 4:43 PM UTC
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton are among the presidential candidates that have yet to fully clear their books.
Take your inflammatory headline back to r/politics. Both parties are equally evil and I don't give a shit about partisan sniping.
That is some serious cherry picking skills. I'll try to keep this brief:
The caption claims that Bachmann, Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman owe millions to small businesses, with specific amounts of debt and complaints by small business owners reported in the article and direct links from the article.
You then pick a line saying that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Buchanan and Al Shartpton still have debt (with a link in the article to more details). Do they owe millions? Do they owe money to small businesses? From your cherry picking, you would presume so.
However, the difference in debt by the Democrat candidates is an order of magnitude less than the debt of the Republican candidates.
Here's a little table to highlight the differences:
| Candidate | Debt | Who debt is owed to |
|---|---|---|
| Newt Gingrich | $4.85 million | Basically every company involved in running a campaign. |
| Rick Santorum | $1.69 million | Primarily owes a company that managed his website, a database service, and a media consultant |
| Michele Bachman | $0.935 million | Various |
| Jon Huntsman | $0.235 | Various consultants |
| Bill Clinton | $0.219 | Event site rental to Seattle? A bit strange, Seattle claims they aren't aware of any debt owed. |
| Hillary Clinton | $0.245 | Political consulting firm Penn Schoen Berland (paid $40k towards debt in 1st quarter, still in process of paying the rest off) |
| Dennis Kucinich | $0.504 | The campaign's treasurer for legal and record keeping services. |
| Pat Buchanan | $0.118 | Article doesn't mention specifics (for the sake of this argument, doesn't matter. He ran for the Reform Party) |
| Al Sharpton | $0.888 | Various consultants and businesses. |
| Note: Jon Huntsman only owes a relatively small amount because he was threatened with a lawsuit by vendors earlier this year. His response was to loan his campaign $1.54 million. |
Denis Kucinich primarily owes money to a person who was heavily invested in his campaign. While the debt is certainly owed, it's not on the same level as a small business that has nothing to do with your campaign and is just doing a service for it.
Among the Democrats, Al Sharpton is by far the worst offender, especially given the number of years he's had to pay off his debt. I wouldn't make any excuses for him, he has the money to pay his debt and obviously should.
Hilary Clinton owes money to a large firm and is in the process of repayment (completely normal for any campaign).
Bill Clinton's campaign is murkier. They claim all outstanding debts are in dispute. The lion share of the debt, about $175k, is owed to a city that claims to not know anything about it. Not sure what to make of that, but obviously the money isn't owed to a small business regardless.
How are those equally bad?
Then there's the matter of the content of the article itself, with statements like this:
Turf Cars owner Cal Campbell says the Bachmann campaign left the golf carts on campus with the keys inside. “When we went to pick them up, they were destroyed,” he said. “One of the things you don’t do when running for president is going around hanging small businesses.”
That is some serious cherry picking skills.
Reading the linked article is not cherry picking.
You then pick a line saying that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Buchanan and Al Shartpton still have debt (with a link in the article to more details). Do they owe millions?
No, but it's been four years since they ran up their debts. I hope they still don't owe it.
How are those equally bad?
I never said they were equally bad in terms of responsibility to creditors, though they clearly are. I meant that they are equally bad when holding the reins of government. Bush tortured people and Obama is killing citizens without trial. The policies on domestic wiretapping, drug laws, and every other issue that affects the common man are the same regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans control government. Both parties are the same and equally evil. Anyone engaging in this sort of partisan sniping is only working for more of the same. Take it back to r/politics.
I don't want to get into a debate about everything.
If you read the article, it's actually rather fair and has links to a ton of information. In particular, it (or one of the linked articles) has praise for McCain's campaign, which ended with a surplus.
I've read about this issue in other articles. While it isn't unusual at all for campaigns, especially failed campaigns, to have debt, it is unusual to have this massive of a debt. IIRC, Newt Gingrich has the largest debt of any failed presidential primary campaign by far. In addition, some of the specific complaints by the vendors are not at all normal (and there are many more complaints that I've read in other articles). Normally, the debt is owed to a few consultants or other people involved with the campaign. Campaigns with debts like Al Shartpon and the Republicans mentioned in the article are pretty unusual and shady in my opinion.
I agree that the article belongs on r/politcs. If you had simply said that, I would have given you an upvote and moved on. But when you try to also invalidate the article and draw a false equivalence between the parties, that's another matter.
If you read the article, it's actually rather fair and has links to a ton of information. In particular, it (or one of the linked articles) has praise for McCain's campaign, which ended with a surplus.
I'm not griping about the article. I'm griping about the headline. This is propaganda.
Campaigns with debts like Al Shartpon and the Republicans mentioned in the article are pretty unusual and shady in my opinion.
Why? Campaigns for candidates on both sides of the aisle are more expensive every election. When a candidate has been discarded from the race he has no ability to pay back his foolish creditors since he will have no power to wield in their favor. If anything, sit back and enjoy the schadenfreude with me when the assholes that bought influence are left in the lurch.
But when you try to also invalidate the article and draw a false equivalence between the parties, that's another matter.
Since we agree on other matters, let's discuss this "false" equivalence between the parties. I argue that they're both corrupt power brokers that don't have the interest of the citizen at heart. Do you take issue with this?
I'll try to keep this brief
I take no issue with the rest of your comment.
By keeping it organized as a table, it was a quick read instead of a long, confusing wall of text.
[deleted]
All of the debts on the table are for presidential campaigns.
You didn't simply say this article belongs on r/politics. You backed it up with a typical diversion and attack that doesn't make a lot of sense (but would fit perfectly on r/politics).
Aw, look at the little Conservative all awwnngry.
The article is about the hypocrisy.
Democrats don't espouse fiscal responsibility. That's why the article focuses on the main figures of the Republican primary.
The use of Democrats later on was to demonstrate a systemic issue beyond hypocrisy.
Really? Are you saying it was a hallucination when, over the course of the last twelve years, I've heard countless liberals try to make the argument that the GOP is actually less fiscally responsible than the Democrats?
The use of Democrats later on was to demonstrate a systemic issue beyond hypocrisy.
The use of the Democrats later on demonstrated that this isn't a Republican trait. It's a politician trait.
Are you missing the point intentionally?
I've heard countless liberals try to make the argument that the GOP is actually less fiscally responsible than the Democrats
Citizens who are liberals may argue that (and it's true), but it's not a party platform for liberal/Democrat politicians. That's the point. You can't be a hypocrite without making an official stand on something.
The use of the Democrats later on demonstrated that this isn't a Republican trait. It's a politician trait.
I know. That's exactly what I said in my last sentence.
Again, the point isn't about who is irresponsible with money, which is what you're trying to argue. You're trying to say they are all equal, so it's a wash. The article is about the Republican primary runners who say that fiscal responsibility is one of the most important issues. They even bashed Obama about it, only to show later that they don't follow their own principles.
Citizens who are liberals may argue that (and it's true), but it's not a party platform for liberal/Democrat politicians. That's the point. You can't be a hypocrite without making an official stand on something.
You do understand that the Republican platform addresses spending of taxpayer dollars in government, not the private spending of donations and apparently loans by candidates, right?
The article is about the Republican primary runners who say that fiscal responsibility is one of the most important issues.
I won't bother repeating the point I made before in this comment, but such hypocrisy can be found on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats, who are supposedly for civil rights and due process, have continued and expanded the wars they spent the Bush years whining about. And even more deliciously, the party that one would think would be over the due process rights of minorities has broken our nation's cherry on the topic of extrajudicial executions.
There's more than enough hypocrisy between candidate Obama and President Obama to cancel any sins of the Republican party. The last four years have been epic in that respect.
This subreddit is really just spillover for r/politics, unfortunately.
I wonder what conservatives have to say about their people robbing small businesses.
I dunno, but as a liberal I'm kind of cheering them on. A few more primaries like the last one, and we might even get lucky enough to bankrupt their donors.
You cheer small businesses being put out of business?
EDIT Before the downvotes rain on me, I know you are cheering the republicans shooting their own faces off, not the small buisiness part. :)
Just the ones that are stupid enough to give money to a guy named Newt.
And someone as clearly sociopathic as Santorum or Bachmann.
The free market will sort it out.
Such faith!
'Let God sort them out', hey? But now... 'free' market? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric
Perhaps you mean sarcasm, so upvote it is.
There is a reason this conservative didn't support any of these candidates.
Many supported them, they just didn't have as many losers as the 'winner' did.
I notice you and the OP failed to read the article that also mentions the same problems with Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich, etc.
I'm not making excuses for democrats.
Let's see...it's true and it is damaging. So, the game plan is:
"Damn liberal media. Their bias is clearly showing, blah, blah, blah."
RTFA:
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton are among the presidential candidates that have yet to fully clear their books
The defunct 2004 presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) this month reported owing $2,000 to H. Charles Kaffie of Corpus Christi, Texas.
That somehow makes it ok? Because that's all you're saying. "Democrats do it so I don't see what the big deal is." Democrats that are doing this are criminal asses too. What's your point?
His point, which should be quite clear in this context, is that the headline is selectively picking on one party for what is common practice.
That is not at all what I was saying. The headline screams bias though when that is part of the article.
zips up fly
Sorry about that. Didn't mean to let my bias hang out.
"HURR LIBRUL SMEAR JOB DURR"
They are users...snake oil selling...carnival barkers.....
Carnies. Small hands. Smell like cabbage.
Bill Clinton also still owes lots of small businesses for work they did on his 1996 campaign, and he was the most fiscally responsible president of the postwar era. So it's hard to see what point you're trying to make by attempting to link fiscal responsibility with campaign debt.
Bill Clinton also still owes lots of small businesses for work they did on his 1996 campaign
according to a source posted above, this isn't true.
And according to the original article, it is true. My point is not that Clinton owes money, it is that a candidate's campaign debt has nothing to do with the fiscal policies that the candidate would pursue if elected.
I certainly wouldn't drop my support for a candidate that I agreed with over the issue of campaign debt, because I understand that most candidates borrow money and use credit for goods and services in good faith, thinking they will be able to repay their debts when their campaigns catch fire and donations start rolling in. If the candidates didn't believe this, they wouldn't bother running.
There are, of course, exceptions to the "good faith" assumption. Candidates like Gingrich, Cain, and Giuliani clearly were never serious about running for president (Giuliani didn't bother campaigning in Iowa or New Hampshire, Cain went on a book tour in the middle of his campaign, Gingrich never hired more than a skeleton staff in several key states, resulting in his failure to make the ballot). These "candidates" were merely trying to raise their public profiles so they could demand higher speaker fees and sell more books. The debts their campaigns left represent outright theft, which is a lot more serious than fiscal irresponsibility.
No, he does not.
Huntsman has behaved more honorably than the rest of the Republicans. Note also there are Democrats in the same boat. Just to be fair, ya know.
Why doesn't the GOP pay those bills? The party surely has tons of money, and they're pretty much responsible for these people having ran in the first place.
The GOP doesn't owe the money and probably couldn't legally pay the bills.
RTFA. This isn't a R or a D problem it exists on both sides.
At least Lanister's always pay their debts.
funny that they talk about milllions, and only quote a couple people for debts around $2000.
If you owe 500 businesses $2K you owe $1M.
Fiscal irresponsibility? Don't you mean "theft"?
It's only theft when the little people commit it.
[deleted]
“One of the things you don’t do when running for president is going around hanging small businesses.”
Au contraire, my good man. The stupids don't give a flying fuck about their favorite celebrity politician fucking over the little guy. They'll never even hear about it, and if they do hear about it, they'll assume it's just a liberal smear campaign.
This isn't news fuck you.
Borrow and Spend. That's all Republicans know how to do. Do they ever pick up the tab? Ever?
Read the article they mentioned some top tear democrats that still owe money "Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton are among the presidential candidates that have yet to fully clear their books."
I hope all those vendors bring a lawsuit, or at least make it publicly noted that they want their money back.
These candidates will try to defend themselves by saying that they were donations and they should be proud contributing to the campaign.
Hopefully, these candidates will experience the dark (and more prevalent) side of free-markets; its all about the money, and these guys want their money back.
It's actually a regular thing for failed candidates to not pay their bills.
Some business even refuse service for that reason, if the candidate fails then they may never be paid and might go into bankruptcy.