Rich and Strange

   Reacting to yesterday's NY Times story (link) concerning preferential White House access being given to significant Democratic Party donors (the article's capstone was former Rep. Patrick Kennedy's statement that access-for-campaign cash was an explicit quid pro quo affair), Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) today recharacterized the argument on Chuck Todd's MSNBC Daily Rundown show as essentially one of "reverse discrimination" (my description, not his words).


      He said that what Kennedy (n.b., the gift that keeps on giving) meant by quid pro quo was that prominent donors should not be denied such access because they made hefty political contributions.  Clearly, this response makes no sense whatsoever.

     Obviously -- and the NY Times piece made this clear -- cash-for-access is a regular and frequent practice of both major political parties.


     But Clyburn's statement, which was allowed to stand unchallenged and uncontradicted by host and reporter of sorts Chuck Todd, reminds us that we live in confusing and dangerous times where a mostly recumbent, snoring media suborns dishonesty either through sloth, ineptness or, as is obviously the case with MSNBC (I'm calling you, Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton), born-in-the-bones corruption.




 

     I regret to say that I cannot report back on the "White House Soup of the Day," astonishingly a regular Daily Rundown feature.  I needed to walk our dogs, Andy and Edie, which is more important than watching morning television, especially a micro-rated White House "fan show," which seems to be running on fumes.

 

All images taken from Alfred Hitchcock’s film, “Rich and Strange” (1931)