Another myth debunked: Kagan's campaign donations not unusual
Laura Ingraham falsely suggested that Elena Kagan's campaign donations to Democrats -- including President Obama -- were somehow unusual. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts -- who was appointed by President Bush -- donated to Bush's campaign in 2000, and dozens of Bush judicial appointees reportedly donated to Bush or other key Republicans prior to becoming judges.
Ingraham suggests Kagan's donations are somehow unusual
The day Obama announced Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, Ingraham tweeted: "2000-2008 Kagan donated $12,550 to Democrats, more than half of it to Barack Obama."
Numerous Bush-appointed judges -- including Chief Justice Roberts -- made donations to Bush and other Republicans
FACT: Roberts donated to Republican candidates, including George W. Bush. According to a July 20, 2005, Associated Press report:
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts has donated to the political campaigns of several Republican candidates, including one senator who will vote on Roberts' appointment to the high court.
In recent election years, Roberts has contributed more than $3,700 to Republican candidates, including $1,000 to George W. Bush's successful bid for the presidency in 2000.
Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, gave $500 to the 2000 re-election bid of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., according to campaign contribution reports.
He also contributed $1,235 to the 1998 campaign of Republican Peter Fitzgerald, who defeated Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, a Democrat. Fitzgerald only served one term. Roberts gave $250 to Peter Rusthoven, a Republican who failed to gain the GOP nomination against Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., in 1998.
Much of Roberts' political giving was to his law firm's political action committee. He gave more than $5,600 to the Hogan & Hartson PAC, especially during the 1998 and 2000 election cycles.
FACT: Roberts had a history of involvement in GOP campaign activity. According to his Senate Judiciary questionnaire for his Supreme Court nomination, Roberts was a member of the "Executive Committee, D.C. Lawyers for Bush-Quayle '88" and "Lawyers for Bush-Cheney" in 2000 and "assist[ed] those working on behalf of George W. Bush on various aspects of the recount litigation."
FACT: Dozens of Bush-appointed judges "made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships." According to a 2006 study by the Center for Investigative Reporting:
At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show.
A four-month investigation of Bush-appointed judges by the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that six appellate court judges and 18 district court judges contributed a total of more than $44,000 to politicians who were influential in their appointments. Some gave money directly to Bush after he officially nominated them.
This type of article belongs on the right hand side...the blog side.
mmfa concocts a theory about a myth...then claims to debunk the myth. When in fact, there was no myth...no conservative mis-info (unless Ingraham's claim about the dollar amount is false)...and no debunking.
Myths and falsehoods about Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination
Was on the Research side. Why would this addendum to that research article end up on the blog side? It's not "opinion". It's a factual rebuttal by MMFA to the false talking points from rightwingers!
She suggested it was worth noting - that it was somehow remarkable, but it is not remarkable at all!
It's a non-relevant fact being used to imply wrongdoing where none exists.
There's no good reason to tweet that fact unless you think that the fact is worth noting. It's not, since we know that she never would have tweeted that Roberts had contributed to Republicans. It's hypocrisy.
But you've always been comfortable with hypocrisy - maybe that's why you're so unimpressed with MMFA's pointing hers out!
I think, everything said, that MMFA believes it is important to say that campaign donations are not unusual. By reporting that Kagan made contributions to Democrats, Fox's audience is likely to draw from such reporting that Obama nominated her as a political favor. However, MMFA feels that this should not be reported without noting that other conservative judges made contributions to Republicans.
In fact, I believe she is inferring that Kagan bought her nomination which would be patently outrageous. IOKIYAR
To suggest that L I's statement had no purpose other than to state a fact would be turning a blind eye to what L I's intentions were.
No where does Ingraham call the donations unusual. No where does Ingraham create a myth. These are all figments of the mmfa imagination.
As a political operative, Ingraham most certainly had an "intention" when she posted her comment and mmfa chose to use their mind reading skills to dream up the concepts of an unusual myth.
This belongs in the more opinionated blog side of the site...not as any factual reporting of conservative mis-information.
Move this over to the blog roll and we can all have fun dissecting the meaning or intentions of her tweet...but to post it as debunking a myth is pure fantasy.
And, she was.
People don't tweet facts unless they think those facts MEAN something, tell us something.
And, she was.
People don't tweet facts unless they think those facts MEAN something, tell us something.
It's not "a factual tweet, nothing more, nothing less".
Liar.
I DID stick to the topic, and I am NOT Sue.
You may be trying to look at this in a way that is so literal as to deny what is staring you right in the face. Can't see the forest for that dang tree millimeters in front of you.
Based on the tweet, MMfA jumps to an unfounded conclusion and claim they are debunking some myth that it isn't even stated.
Instead she gave only half the picture - a one sided picture. What was her purpose then in doing that?