The NRSC created this video about Senator Maria Cantwell and lobbyist Ron Dotzauer.
From the press release:
"Maria Cantwell can avoid reporters and refuse to debate all she wants, but that won't provide answers to numerous questions out there about her quid pro quo relationship with Ron Dotzauer," said Brian Walton, NRSC Spokesman. "The public deserves to know that Cantwell has bent over backwards for Dotzauer, benefiting him to the tune of $1.5 million."Bent over forwards too, apparently. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 11, 2006 03:54 PM | Email This
I did it before, back in '94 when Sims was running against Gorton, and the Slimes was their campaign cheerleader.
It's happening again, with powderpuff stories like this.
Click below to see if a Slimes story even MENTIONS Dotzauer since Sept. 9th.
Anything that they won't say? Even because, say, it's irrelevant, immoral, or just plain dumb? That explains a lot.
Posted by: Bruce on October 11, 2006 04:41 PMMany problems with this sham. Likely the IRS will be able to go back beyond the Statute of Limitiations.
How this impacts Cantwell??? Remains to be seen. Depends upon who gave these "consulting fees" to Ron and who Ron "laundered them too.
One other HUGE PROBLEM for Ron.
Political Contributions are NOT DEDUCTIBLE...even for Lobbyists. It's pure BULLSH*T folks.
Ron's bigger problem?
He likely under-reported income for Child Support purposes. FRAUD! Child support would require including the income "consulting fees"...but would not allow him credit for purposes of calculating child support.
Once this all comes into the light....it's likely that Ronnie will have BOTH the IRS and a really P*ssed Off ex-wife on his A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will anybody be sharing this theory with the IRS and his ex-wife??? Undoubtedly!!! Remember...10% SNITCH FEE from IRS>
Stake your claim today...
Carry on (and watch that locker room talk!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 05:27 PMhttp://www.gopsenators.com/newsdesk/document.aspx?ID=3305
"...the financial back and forth between the two..."
"...Cantwell has risen politically with Dotzauer's help."
"Dotzauer profits directly from Cantwell's service..."
"Cantwell has bent over backwards for Dotzauer..."
and the title of the video?
"Maria Cantwell And Ron Dotzauer: Making Music Since 1983"
for all the moral values types out there- do you disagree with my characterization of this press release, or do you find this sort of sexual innuendo acceptable in your official party communications?
Posted by: guest on October 11, 2006 06:27 PMif you want to support this statement from the nrsc, no problem. i just want you to be clear about why you do so.
Posted by: guest on October 11, 2006 07:08 PMGet outta here, if you can't post ON TOPIC. Better yet go over to the Horses Patuty and get a real education at Blogging.
We don't post here to Please YOU.
Now Scoot!! Shoo!!!
Posted by: chris on October 11, 2006 08:15 PMThe Cantwell-Dotzauer relationship can be examined from (at least) two perspectives. One of them is the mechanics of the relationship: who did what, to whom, and when.
The other perspective is what the relationship reveals about the character of the participants. Example: Cantwell having sex with Dotzauer a week before his marriage to another woman. Example: Cantwell allowing the relationship (and entanglements like the loan to Dotzauer) to continue after she became a sitting US senator and he a lobbyist.
These circumstances raise serious questions about Cantwell's judgment (i.e., lack thereof), and the MSM had, and has, a responsibility to report on this issue, in order to inform the voters.
Given the refusal of the MSM to fulfill that responsibility, I welcome the efforts made by other entities, such as SP, or the NRSC, to put the issue before the electorate.
Posted by: ewaggin on October 11, 2006 08:23 PMalphabet soup, i understand that this series of comments comes off as shrill. with each passing comment, i get increasingly frustrated with your intellectual dishonesty. and of course this is not unrelated to my judgment about the overall discourse of this website.
stefan, matt, and eric consistently employ techniques of rhetorical manipulation in order to misrepresent facts and shape public opinion. it is rare for them to technically lie, but rather their writing style is ornately crafted in order to obfuscate the truth.
you- the sycophantic followers of this site- enable them. you buy it. you take their talking points and run with them. for some of you, it's simply an exercise in partisanship- you're doing what you can to help your side win. for others, it's a result of blind obedience to dogma.
maybe i shouldn't care. i can certainly understand that my critical perspective is not welcome on a partisan political site. the reason that i take this time to express my views is that i believe in the quaint, old fashioned notion of civic dialogue.
i believe there has been an unhealthy obedience in republican voters in the last ten years that is the cause of the party's ideological drift. i believe barry goldwater would be rolling over in his grave.
for a long time now, various instutional and strategic advantages (as well as incompetence on the part of the democrats) has allowed this situation to remain unchecked, and the longer it continues, the more disastrous are the results. i don't know what will happen in the election next month. but sooner or later, if the republican voters do not hold their leaders accountable, and do not bring their party back to some sort of rational policymaking basis, there will be a reckoning. when that happens, the party will be damaged for many years to come. unfortunately, this correction has taken too long, and the negative consequences for our nation and the world, are severe.
so, yes... i sound shrill. i understand that. i think you guys have really messed things up. that bothers me.
Posted by: guest on October 11, 2006 08:33 PMalphabet soup, you are a coward. your refusal to engage in serious dialogue is a transparent coverup for not having a reasonable response. your participation in this thread results in no discernible benefit to society, and the time you have wasted here will never be recovered.
ewaggin,
i agree with you that the dotzauer/cantwell relationship is indicative of poor judgment, and a conflict of interest on maria's part. it's reasonable that that would inform your vote, and i don't intend to defend the relationship. my specific criticism in this matter is that the nrsc is playing sleazy politics in using sexual innuendo in order to discredit a sitting senator. this directly contradicts mike mcgavick's purported civility campaign. furthermore, it seems hypocritical for a party that claims the mantle of family values to use this type of sexually suggestive language.
So which one is it? Are we lock step followers or are we able to lead the party? And if some of us disagree with one another and are messy, should we write off our party and our free speech? Is evolution never possible? I have a very hard time with anyone who assumes that I am responsible for everyone who may identify themselves as a Republican.
My guess is that you are a lazy thinker and would like to lump all Republicans together so that you don't have to think too much.
Posted by: Elaine on October 11, 2006 09:06 PMI have yet to hear a single positive or useful thing come out of your mouth. So which one of us is guilty of "intellectual dishonesty"? Me for having fun at your expense, or you for acting all pious and petty whilst picking nits at SP's expense?
I don't agree with everything I read here at SP, but it is categorically the most "intellectually honest" political blog in this region. The viewpoints are rich and varied. For you to ascribe a "dogmatic obedience" suggests either you are a liar or an imbecile. Don't bother revealing which - I believe I figured it out already.
So it looks as though you aren't inclined to take OM's advice to chill out, or Chris's advice to shoo...How about FO?
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 09:08 PMWhat, are you retarded?!
These people will "hold the party responsible"?
independents: codespeak for the indifferent, the morbidly undecided, and addle-brained.
progressives: codespeak for liberals who are ashamed to be identified as a liberal so they hide behind a euphemism.
principled conservatives: Every time I see someone use this phrase it turns out to be from someone who secretly regards it as an oxymoron. Are you trying to be oxymoronic (or just indulging in the moron part?)
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 09:40 PMi don't think what i'm doing here tonight is petty. pious? i probably can't argue that. if i could express these thoughts in a more conversational manner, i would. over a beer, it would probably happen. but i'm simply trying to express myself clearly, and that probably comes off sounding pious. it's not intentional.
i have serious disagreements with our current government, and i believe that a great deal of the responsibility for it lays in the hands of uncritical followers. that upsets me, and i feel it's my obligation as a citizen to express my views- being a citizen is not just about voting, right?
i should follow this up with a reasonable appraisal of your belief that sound politics is an intellectually honest blog, composed of a rich and varied mix of perspectives. this is a fundamental disagreement we have. but only 12 min until project runway, and i don't imagine i'll have enough time. i'll try- but how about i'll only do it if you're interested in hearing it. i'll buzz off if you really don't want to hear what i have to say. it's your call, alphabet soup.
Posted by: guest on October 11, 2006 09:48 PMShould I be sorry that you're not up to the debate?
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 10:01 PMSee, I can be marginally constructive!
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 10:37 PMdoes that apply to all parties and stripes of people? how about other political or agenda blogs? does the above statement confirm a mastery of the obvious?
"...class?...any hands?...anyone...?" (bell---rrring!) "never mind--class dismissed..."
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 12, 2006 10:55 AM