Alaskan Exodus: Palin to visit Israel

[bemildred]

:popcorn:

Sarah Palin's hitting the Holyland.

A Palin aide confirmed to POLITICO on Thursday that the former Alaska governor will be making her first trip to Israel next week for a sit down with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Continue Reading

Palin and her husband Todd will arrive in Israel next Sunday for a two-day visit. The couple will make it over to Israel after Palin gives a speech in New Delhi the night before at a major conference of Indian business leaders and politicians.

Palin's trip will include visits to Jerusalem's Old City and holy sites in Nazareth.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51477.html

[Ian David]

1. Isn't there something about this in Revelation? n/t

[bemildred]

3. We are arouind the 4th or 5th trumpet I think.

Coming up on the army of 200 million that kills 1/3 of the earths population.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I expect her to inadvertently find a way of insulting the Prime Minister, Israel, and Judaism in

general while she's there.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. Wow, you guys are almost as civilized as we are!

That's like Amazing! It's like you have your own country, and everything, just like Africa! But why are you so far away from America? I mean, Jesus was American, you know.

[asjr]

4. Have those countries been warned?

[bemildred]

5. It says she gets to meet with Bibi. nt

[oberliner]

6. Hopefully both of them will be irrelevant by 2012

Palin is just about there already.

Might take a little longer for Netanyahu.

[LeftishBrit]

11. +1000!

[Jefferson23]

7. She is next in line for the visit, isn't she. Huckabee and Romney have

a better chance of securing money from pro-Israel groups than she does imo. Although she will likely provide
more warped psycho entertainment than the other two.

[oberliner]

8. Keeping the BS canard about "money from pro-Israel groups" alive

Where Romney got his campaign money:

1 Retired $5,226,994
2 Securities & Investment $4,976,889
3 Real Estate $4,280,926
4 Lawyers/Law Firms $2,735,215
5 Misc Finance $2,181,862
6 Republican/Conservative $1,938,617
7 Business Services $1,645,386
8 Health Professionals $1,418,359
9 Misc Business $973,344
10 General Contractors $839,361

Where Huckabee got his campaign money:

1 Retired $1,142,168
2 Real Estate $541,230
3 Health Professionals $360,420
4 Lawyers/Law Firms $358,547
5 Republican/Conservative $326,119
6 Securities & Investment $259,070
7 Misc Finance $249,401
8 Misc Business $213,864
9 Business Services $194,444
10 General Contractors $184,939

http://www.opensecrets.org/

[Jefferson23]

9. What bullshit would that be, yours that pro-Israel groups do not

fund politicans like Romney and Huckabee?

[oberliner]

12. Go to Open Secrets and look at the numbers

The truth shall be revealed to you.

[Jefferson23]

14. Truthiness, yep. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

27. Because you don't get bang for your buck in presidential campaigns...

You get better value by selectively funding people in particular congressional races. Paying $10,000 to Barack Obama will barely buy you a handshake. It'll buy a whole lot more out in the districts.

The former head of AIPAC said as much in a taped phone conversation:-

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1292/9212013.html

[Jefferson23]

28. Oh there is a system to it, strategy etc. Common Cause has exposed

over the years a great deal of information on the millions in honoraria funneled to congressmen. This is not exclusive
to pro-Israel groups btw, but speaking to your point about bang for your buck. They did find the House's leadership received
more than twice the amount of money other members who did not hold key legislative positions.

So yea..more bang for your buck with a committee chair than the average lawmaker.

[shaayecanaan]

30. There's another aspect to it as well...

Members of congress frequently cite AARP and AIPAC as the most powerful general interest groups, not because they have the most money but because they are are able to employ moral suasion as well.

No member wants to get on the bad side of seniors. People over 55 vote at twice the rate of those less than 55 in low-turnout elections.

In terms of money they are both flies on an elephant's arse. But in terms of image they are considerably more than that.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Where would Political Action Groups fall into that list?

I thought that one of the main purposes of PACs is to make campaign contributions, so what heading do they fall under? Also, that Open Secrets site is very interesting. It provides a list of pro-Israel PACs and their contributions. My understanding is that how it works is that AIPAC directs their contributions to those they feel are suficiently supportive of Israel, and withholds it from those they don't approve of....

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=Q05&cycle=2010

[azurnoir]

16. the problem is that neither Romney, Huckabee, or Palin for that

matter are officially candidates at this point in time, also openly pro-Israel PACs hardly covers pro-Israel contributions because as you may notice in the post above there are 'amorphous' categories such as Lawyers, retired, msc this and that all of which could easily contain pro-Israel contributors not to mention individuals who may base their contributions on that also

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Gotta admit the whole PAC thing confuses me a bit....

I mean, AIPAC's a PAC, right? But it's some sort of mothership MegaPAC that hovers over the baby PACs, and does the traffic cop thing instead of donating money itself....

The category I found interesting was 'Retired'. Either retired Americans are doing fantastic compared to retired people elsewhere, or the title of the category is a bit misleading. I just find it hard to believe that elderly, retired Americans are donating huge amounts to any political campaigns.

[bemildred]

19. I remember when they made PACs legal here.

(That's right, buying politicians with campaign contributions bribes was once illegal, you had to do it under the table.) Anyway, essentially the current rotten situation was predicted back then. That was kind of when I started to get cynical about US politics. But I've come a long way since then.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. It'd be good to see them banned again...

They sound very similar to the way that corporations over here make 'donations' to political parties. I don't see what's wrong with every candidate being given the same amount to use on their campaign so they're on a level playing field....

[oberliner]

34. AIPAC is not itself a PAC

Just a coincidence with respect to the acronym.

[bemildred]

35. I don't believe AARP is either. nt

[oberliner]

36. Top 20 PAC Contributors to Candidates, 2009-2010

National Assn of Realtors $3,791,296 55% 44%
Honeywell International $3,654,700 54% 45%
National Beer Wholesalers Assn $3,300,000 53% 47%
AT&T Inc $3,251,375 45% 55%
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $2,993,373 98% 2%
American Bankers Assn $2,870,154 32% 68%
American Assn for Justice $2,806,000 97% 3%
Operating Engineers Union $2,788,720 88% 11%
National Auto Dealers Assn $2,483,400 44% 55%
International Assn of Fire Fighters $2,368,500 82% 18%
American Federation of Teachers $2,361,250 99% 0%
Credit Union National Assn $2,334,846 57% 43%
Teamsters Union $2,328,900 97% 2%
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $2,316,000 99% 0%
Carpenters & Joiners Union $2,280,375 88% 12%
Laborers Union $2,236,000 96% 4%
Boeing Co $2,170,000 54% 46%
National Education Assn $2,150,300 95% 4%
American Crystal Sugar $2,142,500 68% 32%
National Assn of Home Builders $2,131,000 37% 63%

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php

Fascinating info on that site - great to dig around!

[bemildred]

38. Yes, I know aboutr opensecrets.

I tend to be more interested in that fact that such activities are legal at all, as opposed to whom in particular is doing them and how much, but I know. VoteSmart is not bad either.

http://www.votesmart.org/

[oberliner]

21. AARP is one the weathliest lobby groups in the United States

About the AARP Lobby

In 2007, an estimated $2.82 billion was spent on lobbying interests and organizations. The AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) lobby is among this group of big spenders.

The AARP is a not-for-profit association made up of 33 million members, all of which are 50+ years old. The organization functions as an advocate and service provider for the senior citizen population. It is the second largest membership organization in the United States, and thereby a powerful lobbying force in areas of government legislature and health care reform.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4564694_the-aarp-lobby.html#ixzz1Gu8saOoz

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Senior citizens in the US must be very well-off to be able to donate that sort of money...

Unless donations also come to them from private corporations and stuff. Anyway, that explains why it was showing as #1 on those lists...

[bemildred]

23. AARP is pretty much a front for insurance companies.

Which is all you need to know.

[oberliner]

24. Not really - membership dues are only about $15 a year

AARP is now up to around 40 million members so they take in about $600 million a year in dues from their membership.

They also sell Medicare supplemental insurance plans which are fairly popular, not very expensive, and bring in another sizable amount of revenue.

They also receive some federal funding as well.

The power of the AARP lobby is really a function of its size.

Funny how certain much smaller and less powerful US lobby groups are so well known outside of the United States, yet this massively large and incredibly powerful one is apparently not as widely examined.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Bemildred explained it. Insurance companies are involved...

I'm not sure what you mean by yr last sentence. Are you talking about me being familiar with AIPAC and not the AARP? If so, I can explain it. I really don't understand what you find funny about it....

[bemildred]

29. It's not bad insurance, as insurance goes here.

I'm just saying it is a commercial operation, with all that entails. They lost a lot of cred some years back for supporting one of the congressional health insurance "reform" packages, and have been at some pains since then to win people back. Oberliner is right that they have some good Medicare supplemental packages, and the "reform" last year did make some improvements in how us old farts are treated money-wise, so it's not black and white. But I don't consider them an unbiased advocate for the interests of old people, their attitude is colored by all that insurance money, I get almost as many advertisements for AARP insurance and AARP membership as I do credit card offers.

[shaayecanaan]

25. Those are individual contributions, not contributions from the AARP

in theory, all of those contributions were individual contributions below $2,800.00 (or whatever the threshold was).

In practice, probably at least half of those contributions were bundled. That is to say, they were organised and collected by large donors who were unable to make large donations themselves because of the campaign finance laws.

Bundlers tend to use either retirees or college students to funnel donations, probably because those people have time on their hands. It also looks better to have retirees as your main source of funds, I guess.

Romneys main bundler was the CEO of Dominos Pizza at the time. He had a number of number of other bundlers that are listed here:-

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney/campaign_financing#Romney.27s_bundlers

[oberliner]

31. Retired : Background

Which industry contributes the most to federal candidates and political committees? Defense contractors? Oil and gas companies? Financial firms and investment banks? Pharmaceutical companies? Lawyers?

Wrong.

The top industry isn’t really an “industry” at all, but individuals who list their occupation as “retired” in federal documents.

Retired individuals contributed nearly $279 million to federal-level candidates and political committees during the 2008 campaign cycle, more than any other “industry.” Despite the stereotype that older people are more conservative, the contributions were just about split evenly between Democrats and the GOP.

In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama received nearly $43 million from retirees, while his opponent John McCain received $32.7 million. Retired individuals were the top contributing “industry” to McCain’s campaign, and second only to lawyers for Obama’s campaign.

Since the 1990 election cycle, retired individuals have contributed nearly $1 billion to candidates and committees at the federal level.

While there are no companies in this faux-industry to lobby the federal government, the well-known advocacy group AARP has a strong Capitol Hill presence. AARP has more than 40 million members -- all over the age of 50 -- and is the largest advocacy group for retired people.

AARP’s spending has been quite variable from year to year. The group spent $21 million on lobbying in 2009, down from nearly $28 million the year before. In 2005, the group spent a record $36 million on lobbying expenditures.

AARP’s top concerns are maintaining the integrity of Social Security and improving Medicare and other health care for seniors. The association was a major, high-profile supporter of Obama and congressional Democrats’ plan for health care reform, which passed in early 2010.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/background.php?lname=W06&year=2010

[shaayecanaan]

37. Thats not really the case...

much (perhaps most) of those campaign contributions were bundled. That effectively means that the campaign funds came as much from the bundler as they did from the individual donors.

$44 million of Romney's funds came from bundlers:-

http://accountablestrategies.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/reining-in-the-campaign-bundlers/

Some of these bundlers were lobbyists. Others come from finance backgrounds or from public companies. In any event, you can't just say that the funds came from individual retirees.

[eyl]

32. Actually, as I understand

AIPAC is not a PAC (political action committee); many people think it is, because of the similiar acronym (American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

[oberliner]

33. AIPAC is not a "PAC"

AIPAC's name predates the current crazy campaign finance system, and they adopted that name before the letters PAC became an acronym for "Political Action Committee." The P-A-C in AIPAC stands for Public Affairs Committee.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Poor Israel and poor India!

Will they be charging America for the privilege of parking that much concentrated stupidity on them?

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Poor Israel? They inflict Nutty on the US n/t