Matt Glazer Just Does Not Get It
Not that this comes as a surprise to me, but lets take a look at the latest example.
So my favorite kid blogger put up a recent post about a Supreme Court ruling (man, have they been busy lately or what?) that struck down a federal law that allowed congressional candidates running against self-financed opponents to increase the maximum amount of contributions they could accept from each individual donor. A move, basically, to try and level the playing field when one candidate decides to dump a bunch of their own money into their campaign.
Now, Glazer takes this Supreme Court decision and proclaims that wealthy Republicans can now breathe easy because their big money can continue to buy campaigns while fair-minded democrats continue to fundraise a little here and there. The law is once again back on our greedy side. Thankfully.
There is just one little problem with Glazer’s conclusions…the campaign finance law in question, the one that the Supreme Court struck down, was adopted in 2002…when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. That’s right, a Republican House passed the campaign finance reform measure, then a Republican Senate did so as well, and an equally Republican President signed it into law.
And yet according to Glazer, Republicans are now rejoicing that it is off the books for good. Hey Matt, before you go running your mouth about a specific party standing to gain from the repeal of a current law, you might want to pay some attention to which party actually wrote the law.
But I don’t know what I am wasting my time for. It’s not like responsible journalism is that high up on Matt’s priority list.
Correction: At the time of this post, I foolishly over-looked the fact that Democrats held a majority in the US Senate when the millionaire amendment was adopted. To everyone who read that, did a double take and had to do some fact checking, I offer my apologies.
10 Responses to “Matt Glazer Just Does Not Get It”
By jp on Jun 26, 2008
This has been an issue for over twenty years. It was actually introduced in the early 1990’s when a California businessman was planning to run against a former State Senator (then Congressman) who just happened to have been on the ballot when the district flipped to “R”. The Senator ran, with limited support, and won. He thought it unfair that a more well-financed, if self-financed, guy should take the seat from him.
This was a GOP program from the start. But, it was before the net, Moveon.org, and other entities made all of those false field-levelers irrelevant. Primaries are no longer the problem.
By Anon on Jun 27, 2008
That’s right, a Republican House passed the campaign finance reform measure, then a Republican Senate did so as well, and an equally Republican President signed it into law.
Democrats controlled the US Senate in March 2002 when McCain Feingold was passed. (See roll call vote on McCain Feingold here, and here for a chronology of party control of the US Senate from the US Senate’s website).
By Anon on Jun 27, 2008
Roll call vote didn’t come through on that last post. Check here for it, and the full url is posted below:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00054
By Check Your Facts on Jun 27, 2008
All it takes is a really quick search on wikipedia to realize how wrong you are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain_feingold
McCain/Feingold happened when the Democrats controlled the Senate. What was that about fact checking and journalistic responsibility?
If y’all are going to attack someone personally at least get your facts right. Also, doing a quick google search, it looks like Glazer was a freelance journalist from 2004-2005 before he moved back to Texas. Not sure if it is the same one, but that would make y’all look twice as foolish.
I was just starting to take y’all seriously as a blog, if you can’t use google or wikipedia, I will read something more credible.
Sad thing is, unlike other sites, I highly doubt you will even post this…
By Jake Hatlin on Jun 27, 2008
All:
I’ll take my lumps here and offer no excuse, only an apology. The D’s did have the Senate when this deal was made. But I think it is still important to point out this this millionare amendment was also approved by a Republican House and a Republican President.
Again, sorry. I’ll do better next time. I, personally, blame Simpsons re-runs. They can be very distracting.
By Check Your Facts on Jun 27, 2008
I read Glazer’s post, seriously? Y’all have gone after the BOR kids for a while now and not once have any of your critiques come close to being accurate. They even say in the post that it will help Democrats who can self-finance.
What is your post even about?
Glazer talked about the fact that the Supreme Court is allowing millionaire’s to have a greater access to speech that average candidates. He talks about Republican’s who lost and tried to self finance in the primary and Democrats who may be an advantage now. Y’all go after him for not fact checking his piece and then, wait a second, y’all don’t fact check yours AND misconstrue his entire post.
Melodramatic much or just trying to make a name for yourself?
By Jake Hatlin on Jun 27, 2008
Re Fact Checker:
I gave you one free shot because I deserved it. But you came back for a second shot so this time I hit back. If you can’t graciously accept my acknowledgement of fault and subsequent apology, then game on b*tch!
The funny truth of it is, I agree with Matt in that the millionaire amendment was good policy. Where I disagree with him is that its repeal benefits one party. You and I obviously hold different opinions of Burnt Orange Report, and that is fine. But I challenge you to defend your position that I misconstrued Matt Glazer’s words to be vengeful against Republicans when he said things like:
“This has to make the Republican Party happier…”, and
“Candidates like Mike McCaul can now write himself a huge check…”
Furthermore, it was only after certain comments were offered that the post was amended to acknowledge that this rule change could benefit certain democrat candidates as well. Glazer certainly didn’t do so on his own.
The three above mentioned examples support that I did not misconstrue Glazer’s words, I only focused on his one-sided mindset that any time anything happens in the world, whether it’s a Supreme Court ruling or my neighbor walking her dog, that happening is part of a Republican conspiracy to rule the world.
And you don’t have to use catch phrases like, “I highly doubt you will even post this” to get Sam or I to post your counter opinions. We’re all about an open forum. Even though I may think that you have the intellect level of my 3 year old nephew, I’ll still post your dribble.
Oh, and thanks for being a reader.
By Check Your Facts on Jun 27, 2008
Ok, we’ll consider this my last comment if for no other reason than I will never visit the site again.
I don’t know who benefits more from this amendment being repealed. I am not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to be one. You are clearly the policy wonk so I will defer to you, but the post you slam seems to say Republican’s benefit from having more millionaire’s run, but Democrats will see a benefit come November. Is that wrong?
Second, BOR seems to update and amend their stuff, you seem to bury it in the comments, seems like one is more transparent than the other. Will you do a full page retraction like papers and other esteemed outlets do?
In addition, is Glazer or BOR wrong in the facts? It seems like McCaul can write a pretty hefty check since his wife Linda is the daughter of Clear Channel Chairman Lowry Mays. Is it factually incorrect that McCaul now has a benefit there?
You seem to focus on the stories that allow you to attack Democrats and other semi-public officials. Is that because of an ongoing Democratic conspiracy to own the internets and block the tubes for Republicans.
Since Al Gore created the internet in the early to mid 90’s, conservatives have accused Democrats for fear mongering and trying to scare voters about the vast right wing conspiracy. Maybe that is my naive 3 year old mindset?
Whatever it is, I read this site because I thought it might be an insightful place for moderate to conservative values– something I have supported since Eisenhower. Well guess what, you have decided to attack me, my thoughts, and my critiques as childish, and now I am going to join the Democratic Party. Good job young turks.
You lost a vote and a reader because of your naive, immature way of dealing with people. Enjoy your pseudonyms and you vile. You are everything wrong with the Republican Party, and I seriously doubt you will publish this too.
By Jake Hatlin on Jun 28, 2008
RE: Fact Checker
You’re now the reason for the teardrops on my guitar. I’m sorry I drove you away. I wish there was soemthing I could do to take it all back.
I know that things between us can never be the same, and that it is truly over but in case you ever put on a fake wig and big sunglasses and peer into the window to see what I am up to, there are a couple of things I would like for you to know.
First, I know that this is all my fault. Thats why I graciously accepted your first set of harsh words toward me, and it is also why I did update my post yesterday to acknowledge the incorrect statement I made on the ’02 US Senate (its in italics, you can’t miss it).
Second, no matter what I said, I always did love you. If only you could have believed me when I said that you don’t have to include quirky/daring lines in your comments to get me to post them, maybe this could have worked.
Third, I tried to let you in but you never paid any interest in me. If you really knew me then you would have known that I don’t shamelessly cheerlead for Republicans. I am well documented for getting after the likes of Mike Krusee, Jim Jackson, Dan Patrick, and Leo Berman, and also getting after the Republican Party as a whole for their image on such topics as illegal immigration and fiscal responsibility. I can’t help but to feel that you never gave me a chance.
I know that this breakup is for the best, but it will hurt for a long while. It’s difficult for me to say, but I wish you the best and I hope that someday you find a blog that truly deserves you. There’s nothing more to say so I will just fade away like smoke rings in the dark. I hope you dance and know that I know I will see you everywhere.
By Roger on Jul 6, 2008
I find it ironic that somebody posting as “Check Your Facts” cites a Wikipedia entry for fact checking…
Man, why am I not drunk right now? I almost made sense just then…