http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bus ... um=twitter



There's also a video of the interview here



Now neither this one or the WSJ article actually provided a link to the website itself, bit after a pitof searching I found it

http://www.keepinggophonest.com/behind- ... ys-donors/

Now the WSJ article actually focuses more on the fact that an opposition research firm had been hired to start digging into Vandershoots past looking for More dirt.

Now I realise the media here are probably focusing on Vandershoot as he is the cleanest of the donors mentioned. All they seem to have is some unspecified funding of anti-gay campaigns. And I realise that we are not being told anything like the full story here by the WSJ or the Standard (FOX is a given)

Even as I am generally on the side of Obama, I find this behaviour extremely disturbing. I realise that if anyone has built up some vengeance rights on the grounds of smearing by association its Obama, but frankly all that these guys have really done here is donate to a superpac. That mere fact does not mean that their names have to be dragged through the mud on a campaign website. What happens if Vandershoot goes out of business due to lost orders. Do his workers deserve to lose their jobs? What about the relations these people have withtheir friends and family. Do they need their past raked over just because they donated big bucks to Romney, and therefore Romney needs some guilt by association.

Or is this Normal in American campaigns. Or did citizens United open up a whole unintended new can of worms?

I just don't like this kind of thing at all.

Having read the bio's I'm not overly concerned. These are nothing like small fish donors and they don't sound like they're very good people to me. I certainly don't for a moment put any stock in the Cavuto/Fox story on it. And yes, politics is this dirty and the other side will do this and more in spades and in heavy duty cash.

We have lost a lot of grounds and a lot of worker rights over the last 30+ years being a little to squeamish, a little too chicken in dealing with these bastids. JMO, anyhow.

Joe Scarborough of MSNBC expressed the same thought on his show last night, adding that the Democrats better be ready for the same treatment. The replies by Joe's fellow hosts were wishy-washy, but probably realistic. "No Pilikia" means "no trouble/no worries" which has always been my way, but I think Citizens United changes all the rules this year. For now, I'll blame it on the Supreme Court for their sorry decision. There is just too much at stake this year so I can understand why the Obama campaign might go for the jugular in 2012. I'll see it as revenge for the installation of King George the Dubya in 2000 & the swift-boating of Kerry in 2004.

Joe Scarborough? You mean the guy who suddenly, and with little explanation, resigned his Congressional seat after one of his young female interns was found dead? That Joe Scarborough was offering his opinion on an ethical question?

Huh.

While I realize the real campaigning has just begun, I agree this is a bad idea and, IMO, a bad tactic to take. I suspect there is equal "bad stuff" on the other side. Perhaps the "hit first" mentality was the tack they wanted to take, but I don't think it's smart campaigning, either way.

In fact, over the past several months, with all the emails I've received, "most" about fundraising but also campaign strategies, and meetings I've attended, I've seen a lot of what I believe is bad strategy, especially locally (statewide). I have expressed my opinions at meetings and in fact have walked out of a couple just shaking my head.

I hope things change as the campaign progresses. And while I know this one must be different than the 2008 campaign, what I'm seeing is going from one of the most brilliant campaigns I can remember, for 2008, to one that's... well, nothing on that order.

Just my .02, of course. YMMV

I disagree. "Doners" should be spelled "Donors."

I also disagree that this is a bad direction. It's non-news. These are a handful of pages out of thousands on the D campaign front. Vandersloot is not just a donor, he's a senior campaign leader. And these are very tame bios -- very little if any innuendo, just a few facts and links. Public figures with public roles, and the kinds of people whose agendas may receive payback if Romney wins, in the form of government jobs, lobbying access, sinecures, nepotism, patronage, legislation, or pork. That in itself may not be any the less true of the Democratic machine (I really have no idea), but it's worthwhile to know the values and objectives that would thereby be supported: anti-gay, chiefly, it appears.

Fresh air and Sunshine is always good in our political process. I don't see any problem with pointing out what causes a business owner supports. I make choices about what businesses I support based on learning that the owner or CEO supports something or has a point of view I agree with or don't agree with. What people love about SuperPacs is they can donate practically in secret. They have a way to support their causes but hide their views from the customers who might not patronize their businesses if they knew. How many of us supported Komen until we learned the truth?

What Verbie said.

And PLEASE correct the misspelling in the subject line. It's DONORS. Wasn't there a squiggly red line?

Done.

For years, people worked to get some transparency into the election process along with other campaign reforms. Citizens United wiped out most of it. We absolutely need to know who is donating and how much. Campaign money is considered as protected free speech. As such, the public has a right to know whose speech it is and what's behind it. Why would you want to do business with a person or company who is advocating against your rights or interests or against the public interest?

As long as it's based on verified facts and not Corsi-like innuendo and fabrications, I don't see the problem.

There's the old saying that if you would be embarrassed by seeing your activities on the front page of the newspaper, you probably should not be doing those things. If unlimited campaign donations are allowed, we at the very least need to know who is speaking so loudly with their money. If our government is going to be bought and sold, we at least need to know who is doing the buying and selling. We are watching the value of voting in an election disappear.

Agreed. It is time to hoist the black flag and start cutting throats.

Might as well start now.

I don't have a problem with this. Mr. VanderSloot is free to engage in political activity and consumers are free to use their knowledge of his political activities when making decisions about whether to buy goods and services from his company or his competitors. That's how the free market works.

You would think that "capitalists" would understand the free market...It takes an Obot to explain it to them???

Sometimes I ask myself, "What would Harry Truman do?" I think Truman would fight back with everything that he could get his hands on. I like the accounts of what Bain Capital did to America's workers better, but this is good.

That WS article and Cavuto's interview shows how worried the Romney camp and RWers in general are about transparency and the light of day hitting them. It burns and its not fair. The KOMEN debacle and the Rush Limbaugh debacle and the ensuing fallout worked against them, very badly. Now they are pumping life into a rather aged meme - the scarey black man who leads a crew of Chicago thugs is sending their dirty trixster Obots out to hunt and hurt, you got it, innocent white conservative small businessmans EBRYWARES ! If you're not safe from the thugbots in Idaho, how can anybody be safe ?
FOX News pumps up and floats trial balloons like this all the time to test it out to look for anything that can be enlarged and turned into ammo. Most especially in an election year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp ... 0#47302840

The link is to a segment did on Frank Vandersloot and how he operates. Rachel Maddow and her show was one of the parties that he has threatened with lawsuits for reporting on him and his political activities.

After watching this segment, I don't see how he should be protected from scrutiny since he has no compunction about ruining the lives of other people.

I think Rachel gives very good answers to the questions raised in the original post in the thread.

'Dog, you are right on this. We are too nicenice for our own good. It's time to take the gloves off.

It's part of the tradition. Those who settled the South are brawlers, they just are. Scots Irish with attitude. You aren't a man unless you beat up and bully people into submission.

It's time to stand up to the bullies.

That's out, too.

The GOP picked a real thug for its nominee. President Obama never committed aggravated assault that I'm aware.

They can stop talking about thugs now.

Religious beliefs should be largely off-limits, yes. They may shape his positions, but the poisons themselves are what really matter. How he arrived at them is largely a distraction.

You and I say that and all my relatives back east (VA, NC etc) are all aflutter about a "non-Christian" running on the GOP ticket.

I was looking to see what I could find out about the fruminous Vandersloot. He does not like people writing about him or his company. The company is one of those MLM companies (multi-level marketing) which operates on the chain-letter principle. The promotional video has all these stay at home mom's making hundreds of thousands dollars a year by just referring new members to the buying club and they get a commission on what their referees buy. That's a lot of soap and toothpaste. I can also see how any bad publicity would weaken the pyramid and it wouldn't take much to collapse it and make it hard to recruit new sales members/customers.

Here are some press releases from Melaleuca. I found the lawsuit against the former employer interesting. If you talk bad about the company or boss after you leave, you will pay dearly for breaking your employment contract.

http://www.mlmrankings.com/melaleuca/news.htm

Vandersloot's response to stories that he threatened the media:

http://www.localnews8.com/news/30512994/detail.html

It's kind of a clean-cut Mormon version of the mafia from the looks of it.

That explains why he's afraid of sunlight.

And how much Wall Street tainted money has Obama taken?

How many Wall Street insiders have rotated through his administration so far?

Y'all might wanna find a mirror before pointing.

Neither party is clean. Hell, neither party is American. They're kkkorporate owned entities and Americans no longer count.

Is there such a thing as a Wall Street Outsider???

Well as that may be, the majority of the wall street and corporate money is clearly on the side of Romney and the Republican party.