?

Log in

No account? Create an account
I need my own Super Pac! - alyburns' (aka sideburns & alyjude) Hiding Place
If you spoke faster than David Hewlett you’d travel back in time: Michael Shanks
alyburns
alyburns
I need my own Super Pac!
And while on the subject of running for President as a write-in vote, I have to admit, I'm finally fooled by Lawrence O'Donnell. I swear, I don't know if he's in on the Colbert experiment, or not. *taps chin*

For those who watch the Colbert Report, then you know he's started his own Super Pac to prove how dangerous they are (in his own humorous way, of course) and it's bloody brilliant and the majority of folks I know get it. But as I said, for the first time, Lawrence O'Donnell has me fooled. I don't know if his Rewrites (he's now done two on Colbert and his SuperPac) are tongue-in-cheek or if he's serious and doesn't get it? His expressions give nothing away and I'm totally stumped even though he's a brilliant man.

A PAC is actually a "Political Action Committee" whose job is to raise money to help get a candidate elected; a system that always had strict rules. But in 2010 (duh) the idea behind the PACS was hijacked so now we have something called a Super PAC,  or "independent-expenditure only committees" which can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions and other groups (which weren't permitted for simple PACS) as well as individuals. These were made possible thanks to the right-wing Supreme Court which voted (in an extremely controversial vote) to create a 'Citizens United' rule that allows corporations (like The Colbert Report's parent company, Viacom) to donate unlimited amounts of cash to Super PACs...whereas under regular PAC rules they'd be forbidden to donate (because airtime is considered a donation). 

They also allowed direct attacks on candidates, which weren't permitted prior to 2010. And of course, unlike the original PACS, the Super Pacs don't have to disclose their donors. Duh.

Colbert had to go before the FEC to request his Super Pac status and of course, he hoped they'd turn him down, but knew they wouldn't as they'd already okay'd such Super Pacs as Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Mick Huckabee's Super Pac and Sarah Palin's, along with other Fox News employees who then used the station to push their PACs and solicit contributions. If the FEC had turned him down, it would have meant the others would be in big trouble, but naturally, the FEC couldn't, so now he's using it to illustrate everything's that's wrong with them while having fun with the 'ads' he's paying for, including the three ads scheduled to run in Iowa now, during the State Fair/straw poll and debates. And yes, two primary stations actually ran the ads, but the ABC affliate in Iowa refused!

Anyway, here's the first Rewrite on O'Donnell's show and then here's the 2nd, so view them and let me know if I'm crazy. I think O'Donnell is on it, but damn it, I just can't tell. I swear, sometimes, O'Donnell can drive me crazy! LOL!

If you want to view the whole Super Pac process, you can find all the videos either on YouTube or at Colbert's site, btw.

Oh, yeah, Colbert's also interested in just what Sarah Palin, who hasn't declared herself as a presidential candidate, will use HER Super Pac money, the same Super Pac she advertises on Fox News to solicit money. Maybe to pay for her "vacation", perhaps? Living expenses? Will she throw the money (that's left after her 'vacation') toward one of the final candidates for President among the Republicans? Or maybe just siphon it off into her hubby's business? Since she doesn't have to disclose anything - well, gee, aren't Super Pacs fun?

Hey, you know, if I'm running for President as a write-in cadidate, I could really use a Super Pac. Anyone interested in starting one for me? Abby would, but not even the Supreme Court will allow a cat do to it.

Yep, I need a Super Pac. Badly. The Aly for President Write-In Super Pac.

*nods*

Tags:

2 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
caarianna From: caarianna Date: August 13th, 2011 04:03 am (UTC) (Link)
Just watched the O'Donnell rewrite segments. After the first, I wasn't sure, but after the second, I'm pretty sure he's in on it. The 'dirty filthy' message, repeated over and over, could refer to money in any super pac and he gets to say it by referencing Stephen's fund. The fact that he showcased Stephen's video re: bullies says he follows Stephen closely and is very supportive of him as a human being. The showing of the ads, for all the rhetoric, reinforces Colbert's message. The 'victims' speech, emphasizing how others take great care not to refer to their marks as victims was, I think, could be very pointed commentary about everyone else (other than the 'honest' Colbert) who hustles for money for these kinds of initiatives. He's good, though. Really stays in the super straight character.

Love the ads.

Edited at 2011-08-13 04:04 am (UTC)
alyburns From: alyburns Date: August 14th, 2011 09:36 pm (UTC) (Link)

Yeah, he's so good

that he could fall into the Archie Bunker realm (a realm sometimes Colbert falls into) - in other words, looking so real that people point to him as a GOOD example. That happened during the run of "All in the Family" where people thought it was a show with a character (archie)to sympathize with and agree with. I actually know people who believe Colbert split from The Daily Show because he diametrically opposed to all Jon Stewart stood for! LOL! Some of them still don't get it.

I fear Lawrence is SO good, he may have helped Colbert's message get lost instead of the other way around??

What's truly amazing is how many reporters *aren't* reporting on the SuperPacs and how totally immoral they are. Just amazing - until you remember the reporters are owned and operated by the very corporations using Super Pacs to filter money into the campaigns that further their own selfish agendas. :(
2 comments or Leave a comment