I wrote previously that politicians should have to publicly, literally wear their funders names on their sleeves.
There’s now a petition at the White House site to make it so. Via BoingBoing.
Politicking
18
Mar 13
A new GOP? Pardon my skepticism.
The GOP is promising a reboot, heavy on data (with Buzzfeed saying ‘data’ was mentioned almost a hundred times in near 100 pages), in their Growth Opportunity Project. You can get the document as a PDF here.
The GOP believe that “conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed” and that all their woes can be solved through better marketing messaging. Happy talk about apps, the cloud, and big data won’t solve the GOP’s product problem.
The GOP has stubbornly and repeatedly denied reality, choosing to substitute their own. I find it hard to believe that the GOP will not simply cherry-pick data that complements the political ideology of their funders and activist base as opposed to challenging them with a world that has left them behind (on many social and financial issues).
The highlights or TL;DR are here via TPM.
12
Feb 13
Viewed another way…
Junk Charts took a shot at interpreting [image] the world’s scariest chart (of changes in unemployment during post WWII recessions) from Calculated Risk [image].
07
Feb 13
Hoping for a not-insane Republican Party?
Politico tells you why it will never happen:
But a senior Republican operative said the party has two huge, unresolved impediments to the top leaders’ grand plans: “suicide conservatives, who would rather lose elections than win seats with moderates,” and the “many groups on the hard right that depend on direct mail fundraising that requires a high degree of audacity, and borderline shrillness.”
Via Hullaballo.
04
Jan 13
Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish does Donor Dowery?
Andrew Sullivan, formerly of Time, the Atlantic, and most recently Tina Brown’s Daily Beast has decided to go it alone, publishing online on his own masthead.
Sullivan has the distinct advantage of being one of the few blogging individuals with a loyal fan base delivering page views. He’s decided to put his site behind a pay wall on his own domain. Why be a star in someone else’s sky?
As of this posting it appears that Sullivan has garnered $333,000 in donations from some 11,000 subscribers in the first 24-hours, as reported in GigaOm.
Sullivan has stated that he would not be accepting advertising but has not ruled out advertising in the future.
Un-asked through all of this is how the subscriber model works in conjunction with presumingly anonymous donors and pay-for-play journalism. How can the reader account for the possibility that a generous donor could ‘donate’ a large sum in exchange for favorable coverage? Is Sullivan beyond reproach? Could the entire industry be trusted with that temptation?