- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,436
- Reaction score
- 47,476
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Nice ad-sourcinem.
but isn't that the very crux of your thread
that the nominee came from media matters
Nice ad-sourcinem.
but isn't that the very crux of your thread
that the nominee came from media matters
I'm happy to say that the guy running PJ Media shouldn't be put in charge of monitoring elections - he's never going to be perceived as an honest broker. However, that doesn't mean that if I disagree with him (or Media Matters) that I can simply scoff and say "well, he's a liberal/conservative, of course therefore he's wrong in his statement of the facts".
But if you have evidence that this guy has not, in fact, been put forth, I would be interested in seeing it.
so your objection to the source is whether it aligns with your personal political ideology
got it
W..... T...... H......
.....making our election process more partisan weakens the public trust in our system of representative government and represents a direct threat to our form of government. That is why we should utterly smash any election official or candidate found to be manipulating the vote - to not only disincentive it in the future, but to restore trust in the system. This is an incredibly bad appointment.
The dude who wrote this garbage apparently doesn't know David Brock was the founder and CEO for all of its existence.
I'm happy to say that the guy running PJ Media shouldn't be put in charge of monitoring elections - he's never going to be perceived as an honest broker. However, that doesn't mean that if I disagree with him (or Media Matters) that I can simply scoff and say "well, he's a liberal/conservative, of course therefore he's wrong in his statement of the facts".
But if you have evidence that this guy has not, in fact, been put forth, I would be interested in seeing it.
I thought so, but it appears as though I was wrong, Matthew Butler was CEO January 2011 – April 2013.For all of MM's existence?
so your objection to the source is whether it aligns with your personal political ideology
got it
:roll: did you miss the first half of that statement, or are you simply attempting to troll? I am stating pretty clearly that partisans whose presence will discredit the process have no business overseeing elections regardless of which side they are on.
to you, anyone with a differing political outlook is a partisan
First off, Butler has been gone from Media Matters for almost 2 years. Nothing about this is a reward to Media Matters as he had moved on to a different job. Also, he does in fact have relevant experience, despite the claims of the article, having run a presidential campaign for Chris Dodd and being involved in a number of other campaigns. That is what you would call hands on experience from the user side.
But the one that is the most amusing is that you rail against partisanship on the committy, and yet one of the people listed in your source article as a positive example is in fact a registered republican(Davidson). In fact, trying to get some one who is not partisan to some level in a position like this would be for all intents and purposes impossible.
The point is that the appointee shouldn't highly partisan. This kind of position needs someone who has some level of non-partisanship and Butler is FAR from that. If this was a Rep. President appointing Sean Hannity to the position, most folks on the left would be having a screaming meltdown, but since it's a decision that favors "your" side, you defend it. Crap like this needs to be fought against by ALL Americans and not ignored by some, just because they see a benefit from it. If the worm turns and the next Rep. President starts appointing partisan appointees to positions that NEED to be non-partisan, just remember that you defended this case, so you lose all credibility in any discussion on the issue.
W..... T...... H......
.....making our election process more partisan weakens the public trust in our system of representative government and represents a direct threat to our form of government. That is why we should utterly smash any election official or candidate found to be manipulating the vote - to not only disincentive it in the future, but to restore trust in the system. This is an incredibly bad appointment.
Read the OP.How exactly did Obama reward Media Matters?
The position of what?Did he reward republicans when he nominated a republican for the position?
Happened a month ago.... How is this breaking?
President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts | The White House
I don't know, but let's talking about these lying bastards. They are definitely mainstream leftwing hack group. How do you feel about them representing you?
"They" are not representing us. Someone who used to work there got a government job.
Wait a minute, I thought you lib lefties weren't really leftwing.
Read the OP.
The position of what?
I don't know, but let's talking about these lying bastards. They are definitely mainstream leftwing hack group. How do you feel about them representing you?
This is hope and change in action.
So anyone involved in politics or has opinion in politics isn't qualified to ensure it is easier to vote and that equipment is properly tested and vetted. That makes no effing sense whatsoever. Just because someone has a political point of view they must be passed over positions they are qualified for and only people who have no opinion on politics should be able to be appointed to these positions. That is just plain dumb. This appointee is highly qualified for this job. He is an accomplished attorney that specialized in oversight of management compliance to government directives. He is accomplished businessmen having founded and ran a successful political consulting firm. He has been involved in elections almost his entire adult career and was a successful businessman to boot. If we disqualify people like him to serve in positions of government then we might as well pack up our tents because we will only have mediocrity left. Your arguments hold no logical weight.