Foxy 'doch hosts hill funder
May 19, 2006 11:50 PM   Subscribe

Rupert Murdoch Is the CEO of Fox News's parent company, News Corp., and owns a controlling interest. So it might surprise you that he's hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Is he simply rewarding a reliable big-business vote, Or does he see a change in the winds? He tends to support who's ever in power, including "Liberal" Tony Blair and the Chinese Government. Or maybe he's just being friendly.
posted by delmoi (42 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
When someone asks "Why do they ... "

the answer is money.
posted by dglynn at 11:57 PM on May 19, 2006


Yeah, for as hated as Hilary is on the right, she's certainly no enemy of corporate America, as far as I can tell.
posted by jonson at 12:05 AM on May 20, 2006


Hillary equals worst idea ever for democratic 08 candidate... I'm not sure why any one is even talking about her running in a serious manner.

If there was ever a democrat that swing voters would not vote for it is her.
posted by sourbrew at 12:14 AM on May 20, 2006


Oh God Don't you get it yet ? The Right is Left and Left is Right. I bet you still have a John Kerry bumper sticker on your car. Don't you know that John Kerry and George Bush
are both members of the very same Secret Society Skull and Bones? They are on the same team but different.

The thesis (each idea) is opposed by its antithesis and reconciled with the thesis in a synthesis (consensus), which in turn becomes a new thesis opposed by antithesis. Hegel said that history was nothing but the expression of this flux of conflicting and resolving ideas.

The dialectic process is at the core of all political and social manipulation. 1 Fascism against communism; capitalism against communism; democrats against republicans; conservatives against liberals; Christians against Muslims; environmentalists versus property owners; greens against libertarians; pro-choice pitted against pro-life; antiwar activists versus the neocons. The control of the conflict and resolution leads everyone into a new cycle of conflicts.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/social_change_agents.htm

OK I have removed my Tinfoil Hat now please resume discussion...................
posted by thedailygrowl at 12:25 AM on May 20, 2006


1. Hillary receives large contributions from a number of telecommunications and media corporations. These corporations are moving into or already have a significant Internet, news, cable and television presence.

2. Hillary has raised nearly two and a half times as much money in 2006 than in 2004 and 2002.

Clearly she is making moves to raise a presidential bid. Given the first issue and the influence peddling that comes with campaign contributions from mass media, and further given the weakened chances for a GOP presidency in 2008, it would be little surprise that Murdoch wants to get ready to jump ship.

The FCC is directed by five Commisioners appointed by the President. Murdoch would then be well prepared to influence FCC policy under a second Clinton presidency and expand American interests, including buying controlling interests in larger numbers of local television stations, cable operations and other media delivery outlets.

It is critical the average American citizen know where Hillary's money is coming from before voting for her in 2008.
posted by Mr. Six at 12:27 AM on May 20, 2006


Hillary is the best hope republicans have to win the presidency in 08. If I were a republican I'd be supporting her through the primaries.
posted by mullingitover at 12:47 AM on May 20, 2006 [1 favorite]


Hillary is the best hope republicans have to win the presidency in 08. If I were a republican I'd be supporting her through the primaries.

Kerry might run again...
posted by delmoi at 1:12 AM on May 20, 2006


She's the wrong woman at the wrong time.
posted by shoepal at 1:31 AM on May 20, 2006


the important question is what this means for myspace!
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 1:53 AM on May 20, 2006


Hillary has the balls to go to war and WIN.
posted by b1tr0t at 2:02 AM on May 20, 2006


Don't you know that John Kerry and George Bush are both members of the very same Secret Society Skull and Bones?

I've never understood why people pay no attention to things likes this. One of these days I'll work out the odds.
posted by ryoshu at 2:28 AM on May 20, 2006


I think people do pay attention to it. But folks are unwilling to ascribe to it the inordinate, unproven significance with which as some conspiracists want to freight the relationship.

Skull and Bones is basically a social networking fraternity for blue-blooded Yalies, with a postadolescent fascination with secret rituals (see also, Masons, etc.). It's not a secret cabal to take over the world.

As for Bush and Kerry, sure, they're are both blue-bloods from Old Money, elite New England families. But then again, so were FDR and JFK.

Being rich and privileged doesn't mean you're heart is stamped from the same mold, or that won't make a good President.
posted by darkstar at 3:39 AM on May 20, 2006


Honestly, delmoi, he's grooming her for a butt-kicking.

She - if nothing else - will be the catalyst that will unite the republicans, sane and insane alike.
'
posted by rougy at 3:56 AM on May 20, 2006


"...Being rich and privileged doesn't mean you're heart is stamped from the same mold...."

True. That 666 could have come from anywhere.

322/911/775 - just a coincidence. Really. I mean that.
posted by rougy at 4:04 AM on May 20, 2006 [1 favorite]


Heh...and Farrakhan has some pretty interesting theories about the height of the Washington Monument, too, I hear.
posted by darkstar at 4:45 AM on May 20, 2006


Maybe he's just a dickhead.
posted by trondant at 5:11 AM on May 20, 2006


Maybe he just wants to be Hillary's intern.
I knew they were all in bed together.
posted by IronLizard at 5:49 AM on May 20, 2006


Rupert is just wise enough to realize that you don't have to be a politician to reap the rewards of it. It's a political/business move that won't hurt him in the slightest. Fox News will still be the puppet of the right.

And Hillary? Well, she'll raise a ton of cash up until the point she has to start opening her mouth and trying to speak intelligently to the nation. She'll be doomed shortly, thereafter.

Kerry? I can't imagine there is a democrat alive (sans his immediate family - and even that's questionable), that would back this bum.
posted by j.p. Hung at 7:07 AM on May 20, 2006


"who's ever" ?
posted by cortex at 7:10 AM on May 20, 2006


The real question is why is Hillary accepting money from Murdoch? Fox News has been in full support - to the point of collusion - of a criminal administration while it has raped and pillaged the U.S. Treasury for billions and billions of dollars. We will not see a recovery for decades. It would be so refreshing to see a prominent Democratic politician stand up and say to Rupert Murdoch "I don't need your dirty money". But of course, that's too much to ask from a whore isn't it?
posted by any major dude at 7:45 AM on May 20, 2006


Does anybody have a link to a well-researched article(s) that discusses Murdoch's career?
posted by sic at 7:50 AM on May 20, 2006


Someone stop her. The nation needs a Ned.
posted by graventy at 7:57 AM on May 20, 2006


"Heh...and Farrakhan has some pretty interesting theories about the height of the Washington Monument, too, I hear."

Those numbers all fall back on the Freemasons, though.
posted by inigo2 at 8:17 AM on May 20, 2006


Viewed from the uk this is very interesting. If the Dems do pick up a lot of seats in November then look for Fox to start shifting their support away from the republicans. Sounds unlikely? We thought that until the Sun supported Blair.

Murdoch's only political allegiance is to the winner, and he is usually right.

Now, the secret is to let the "centrist" candidate regain the middle ground voters (probably 2 terms) and then insert your progressive candidate to get one term of non-corporate policy making before the political landscape swings back.
posted by fullerine at 8:30 AM on May 20, 2006


*Landscape = pendulum
This landscape, it swings?
posted by fullerine at 8:33 AM on May 20, 2006


As for Bush and Kerry, sure, they're are both blue-bloods from Old Money

I thought the Bush's were a bunch of Nouveux Riche adventurers who made their money trading with the enemy just prior to World War II.

And as for Kerry, I thought he was some broke-ass gigolo who didn't have a bean until he married a bean heiress?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:37 AM on May 20, 2006


it's pretty safe to bet that she'll get less votes than Gore and Kerry. it's a smart thing for Republicans to fund her, the nomination could end up in the hands of somebody who has a marginally better chance than she does
posted by matteo at 9:03 AM on May 20, 2006


Hillary is the best hope republicans have to win the presidency in 08.

Bears repeating. Hillary, Lieberman, and Biden are just peas in the same pod: nanny-state, corporatist "moderate" politics. Real progressives need to take back this country.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:07 AM on May 20, 2006


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Gore/Wozniak 2008!
posted by thedaniel at 9:55 AM on May 20, 2006


keep your money on the birdey. Now click your heels and repeat after me: OBAMA
(just say no to media mediated elections)
posted by Fupped Duck at 10:10 AM on May 20, 2006


Worst case scenario for the U.S.: Hillary vs Condoleezza.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:20 AM on May 20, 2006


If there was ever a democrat that swing voters would not vote for it is her.

Hell, I don't consider myself a swing voter, I'm pretty much a dyed-in-the-wool democrat, but there's no fucking way I'd cast a vote for her. She's evil incarnate.

At this point, I'm backing Feingold.
posted by salad spork at 10:52 AM on May 20, 2006


I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet - Isn't this just good business for him? Not as in "The tides are turning, let's change directions" but as in "If Hillary runs for president my rightwing news channel will make a fortune."

Sort of like "Let's make indecent programming so that americans will watch my rightwing news channel complain about indecency so that they will vote for politicians who will give us tax breaks to make more indecent programs."

They will ream her every day and Americans will watch and he will get richer.

Yes no?
posted by gilgamix at 11:07 AM on May 20, 2006


fullerine wrote "Murdoch's only political allegiance is to the winner, and he is usually right."

Quite right. He's a pragmatic businessman who has made his empire by following the profit opportunity even when it was contrary to popular taste.

Do I think it's good that he built a network that used the right wing's devisive politics as a fulcrum? No. However, if fair reporting and decent journalism was as profitable, I know Murdoch would be competing with Pacifica News and NPR in a second.
posted by VulcanMike at 1:04 PM on May 20, 2006


Electing Hilary as Pres would be stupid beyond belief. She's hardly likely to fix the root problems in government: hell, if she wins, it'll be because of the root problems.

IMO the best thing that could happen for the USA is a deep cleansing. A whole new slate of pro-active people from both parties, working to create a fair and balanced electoral and governmental system.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:17 PM on May 20, 2006


Any combination of the following will do:

Gore / Feingold / Schweitzer
posted by stenseng at 3:23 PM on May 20, 2006


Belive it or not, I was watching Fox news today at the gym and they basically kissed Clintons ass. They did their "two commentators who agreed" shtick, except this time they both agreed that Hillary was totally awesome
posted by delmoi at 5:03 PM on May 20, 2006


...scary....
posted by rougy at 8:45 PM on May 20, 2006


The only positive thing I can say about Hillary is that I would love to see her preside at the hanging of certain traitors currently within the US government. The poetic justice would please my sense of the aesthetic.

Beyond that, I only know Feingold. But it is, politically speaking, a long way to 2008. All this speculating about events so far afield serves only as a distraction from the current issues, and from the desperate importance of the 2006 elections.
posted by Goofyy at 1:11 AM on May 21, 2006


From Murdoch's point of view, it's a win/win situation. He probably looks at it this way. If he helps Hillary win the primary, she'll lose the general election, allowing a republican favorable to him to win. This is pretty much a foregone conclusion, since she holds the unique position of being loathed by many of the rank and file in both parties. What if he's wrong, and she wins? Well, then he's just bought himself the next president. Either way, he wins.
posted by unreason at 6:20 PM on May 21, 2006


IMO if Hilary becomes the Dem's choice for President, the entire damn party should be disbanded. It would be nigh impossible to pick a more unelectable candidate, and proof that the party is beyond all salvation.

The USA desperately needs a viable third party.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on May 21, 2006


Huh. New Republican Party?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:54 PM on May 21, 2006


« Older Earth's got a case of the Humans   |   OMG ROFL Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments