Why are Murdoch (Faux News, NY Post, etc) execs "bundling" for Kerry?

[stickdog]

I mean, I realize that a mere association doesn't mean anything by itself, but THREE Murdoch executives among Kerry's top 90 corporate bundlers (similar to Bush's Rangers & Pioneers)? Why? How? And what does Rupert think of this?

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1630

Although Dean has raised $12 million more than Kerry, the Massachusetts senator has relied on four times the number of bundlers, those financial backers who collect contributions up to the limit of $2,000 from others. So far, the Dean campaign has released the names of 14 individuals who have raised at least $100,000; another 18 individuals have bundled at least $50,000 for the Vermont governor. The Kerry campaign has identified 32 fundraisers who have brought in at least $100,000; another 87 rainmakers have collected at least $50,000.

Kerry’s $50,000 Hollywood supporters include actor Dennis Hopper, director William Friedkin, Viacom Entertainment Chairman Jonathan Dolgen, Paramount Studios chief Sherry Lansing, CBS Entertainment head Nancy Tellem and three top executives at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Kerry’s Massachusetts fundraisers include longtime backers Alan Solomont, the former finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC); Jonathan Lavine, managing director of Bain Capital; and the senator’s brother Cameron Kerry, an attorney at Mintz Levin – the firm that ranks as Kerry’s all-time biggest donor.

[quinnox]

1. Clearly it proves Kerry is a GOP plant

I mean if Dean says Kerry is a republican it must be true, right?

Note: this post is satire

[stickdog]

11. Again, I'm not saying that. But I am looking for a reasonable explanation

to a reasonable question.

Do you perhaps have one?

[edzontar]

2. Because they hate America and want to take control of the election

As sson as possible.

They like the idea of Kerry and Bush as their little whipping boys.

[stepnw1f]

4. Yawwwnnn

[cosmicdot]

3. I look forward to reading the explanations. Good question.

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/

[lastknowngood]

5. I love the fools who say that's just politics the money doesn't

mean anything unless it goes to another candidate. If the enemies of freedom are financing him and he doesn't repudiate them and their money then we know he has been bought. That's how most politics operate. The the government money can buy.

[eileen_d]

6. Ask 'em. n/t

[fizzana]

7. A friend of mine is a VP at Fox Films & he has told me that

Murdoch encourages the senior executives to donate to politicians but has never specified a particular politician or a party. The fact that Fox Films, sccording to my friend, is 90% Democratic as is most of Hollywood, might explain some of this.

At the same time, Murdoch's chief objective is making money, so he'll happily work both sides of the aisle.

A lot of Fox Films people donated to Clinton and Gore and actively campaigned for both.

I don't see any problem with this. All politicians take some money from people on the other side. Is this going to change what Kerry does or think. I doubt it.

[stickdog]

10. We ain't talking Fox Films here. We're talking Fox News. (nt)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. oh, I think we know why

I wonder how many of those executives went to Yale...

[MadHound]

9. Just another shining example of the two party/same corporate masters

System of government. This is called hedging your bet, no matter who gets in, Murdoch has his claws in him. And quite frankly Kerry is once again acting the part of the corporate whore.

Sheesh, and people wonder why I'm going Green.

[Armstead]

12. Because Kerry is fine with giving away the media

Having a handful of massive corporations controlling the flow of information, sources of culture and entertainment and the infrastructure of the political process?

Fine with Kerry. Nothing to see here folks. Move on. Stop crying in your teacups. You don;t like it just change the channel.

[stickdog]

14. To another Kerry supporting media conglomerate. (nt)

[morgan2]

13. they want the nomination over

and they want someone they can count on to hold onto the status quo. Thats why they didn't let Dean be the nominee.

[stickdog]

16. That's why they won't even mention Kucinich's name except to ridicule him.

http://ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=450

One of the lessons that Greens, apathetics, disgruntled Democrats and others were supposed to be learning this season was the inherent value of working within the system. This virtue is so apparent, one was told, that it requires nothing more than logic. No benefits, no inducements, no reform, not even simple empathy was required on the part of those who now control the Democratic Party. It was enough to declare ex cathedra that if one disliked Bush, the only choice was whatever the Democratic Party wanted to offer.

Well, now the results are in. Not Ralph Nader, not Greens, not Jesse Jackson, but a multi-term, capable, moderate Democratic governor decided to work within the system. And what happened? He was ridiculed, dissed, lied about, and subjected to malicious spin by party insiders, the Washington establishment, and the obese media until eventually the voters believed them and swung to the approved safe, lightweight underachiever, John Kerry. Of course, for inside the system reformers such as Kucinich or Sharpton it was even worse. The NY Times doesn't even think they should be allowed in debates and the rest of the media regularly insulted, excoriated, and scolded them.

No one can look honestly at the experience of those who tried to work within the system this season and argue that the Democratic Party can be reformed in this manner. Along with its fellow-traveling troglodytes of the media there is nothing the party leadership wants less, or is more revolted by, than even talk of reform.

This is not a matter of whether Dean won or lost, but rather the vicious, inhospitable, insulting manner in which one of the most honest, decent, and interesting political figures of recent years was treated because he dared to run without permission of the party's elite. Now, as Craig Crawford put it, "The House of Lords of the Democratic Party are getting what they want."

[RedDawnRising]

15. Because Kerry is a corporate tool like most pols

Of course

[stickdog]

17. No explanation at all?

Are these the good Murdoch News Corp. executives?

I've heard of their existence, but I thought they were just wild rumors -- like Elvis sightings and such.

[WiseMen]

18. Newsflash: Dean First to Use INTERNET To Raise LOT OF MONEY. Others Evil

[ShimokitaJer]

20. Not evil, merely... beholden

I don't believe Kerry is GOP, but I am also not naive enough to think the GOP are the only ones who accept media concentration.

Has Kerry said anything regarding breaking up the vast media conglomerates? No, I didn't think so.

Do you truly believe a candidate's donors have no effect on his policy decisions? If so, then you're not as wise as you seem to think.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Amazingly, not everyone at Fox is GOP

For a lot of people, it's a job like anything else. There are Democrats at Halliburton and Lockheed-Martin, too. I don't ask how they look in the mirror, but I've met a bunch of Fox reporters, and a lot of them are normal people. Go figure.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. No you are wrong wrong wrong

Everyone at Fox is a Repub
Everyone at the CIA is a Repub
Everyone in the military is a Repub
Everyone in the Democratic party is a Repub.

Any questions? (sarcasm on)

Notice Fox contributed to Dean's campaign as well but NO mention of that

[dawn]

25. Actually, I read that all of Fox News employees were, in fact, GOP.

When Murdoch took over the parent company, he made people disclose their political affiliations. He then fired the liberals.

Still searching for a link...

[Alinsky]

22. Today is November 2004 for Republicans

If the Republicans can control whom the Democrats run in 2004 they thus can predict the results.

The Republicans have invested billions of dollars in bribe excuse me influencing money to predict public opinion on a social and political avenue.

Pick up any disgruntled book about Hollywood by some famous former actor. The media as well as the Hollywood industry is not about quality but rather about control and influence.

For example if a media or Hollywood company controls all of the outlets that entertain the public then therefore quality content does not matter the millions of sheeple will go out and spend $8 for a ticket to a movie regardless of its content. Why? For the diversion.

So whomever controls the public airways controls the American Psyche.

It is without doubt true that indeed Kerry is a Republican plant. Everyone knows that he has no actual Democratic ideals, that all his voting record while in Congress has been on the hard right Republican ticket.

So Kerry was the New Nader, the new liberal to split the liberal voter and thus to run the one that has the least chance of winning in 2004.

Mark my words the day Kerry gets the nomination from the Democrats the media will do what they did to Dean, in one day they will turn him into a wimp, and the polls will reflect by a huge margin pro Bush War speak and thus the Pro war polls will stay up until 2004, and that also has a strategic purpose,for the Republicans on the local level, they can bribe excuse me influence those that have not joined the Republican Democratic bandwagon to join.

See the Counterpunch article of Kerry:

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly02092004.html

) Unless Skull and Bones desires a change in their CEO, it's Bush in a landslide. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) will get the DLC nomination. And, then his real record will come out.

It's deplorable. Three-hundred-seventeen bills introduced. Seven passed. And four of those were ceremonial ones -- designating special days. Voted for the horrific Telecommunications Act (in fact, led the charge); voted for the illegal war/occupation; voted for the Patriot Act (in fact, helped draft parts of it when it was first drafted under Clinton); brags about voting for class war on poor moms and kids--Clinton's welfare "reform" -- need I go on?

Yes, I will. One of the few Bills he got passed was 1999's Plan Columbia, the phony Drug War's defoliation of the rainforest with toxic chemicals. Since the Plan was launched some 325,000 acres of South America's oldest democracy have been sprayed with toxins, yet there has been no drop off in cocaine imports to the US. In fact, according to the Harvard Political Review, Columbia's cocaine production increased 11%.

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly02092004.html

[Imalittleteapot]

23. Because they want to be on the side of the

winner.

[ShimokitaJer]

24. No. Because they want the winner on their side.

That's a bit of a difference.