TN-SEN: Murdoch, Celebs Pump Cash Into Ford Campaign
Staunch conservative Rupert Murdoch is pumping money into the campaign of...Dem Senate nominee Harold Ford. The Memphis Commercial Appeal reports that Murdoch, along with 17 other execs at Murdoch's News Corporation, are giving Ford money. The paper doesn't say why or how much; but it does add that Ford is also enjoying the generosity of singer Barbra Streisand, actor Leonard Nimoy and Dreamworks founder David Geffen, while Corker is getting cash from Corrections Corporation of America chairman William Andrews, Knox County Mayor Mike Ragsdale, and Nashville Predators Hockey team owner Craig Leipold. The race is expected to consume more than $40 million -- a Tennessee record.
Advertisement
Staunch conservative? Hmmm. As he owns popular left-wing papers in the UK and Aussie Murdoch's actual politics have been debated over the years. Not, I think, staunch. Opportunistic, more like it?
September 13, 2006 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one take on the above:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4world.htm
"You see, Mr. Murdoch’s agenda is not right-wing or left-wing after all – it is simply Murdoch-wing. He uses and manipulates entire nations for the sake of his own personal business interests."
September 13, 2006 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well,with a new cash infusion, Ford may just pull this out.
He will have sold his soul to win, though.
September 13, 2006 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Accepting money is not, in and of itself, a selling of one's soul. The question is, does the money have a real impact on voting.
September 13, 2006 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most interesting point is not whether Ford accepted the money it is the fact that Murdoch donated the money to his campaign to begin with. Sure Murdoch is conservative but I don't see him as an ideologue. And from a business point of view he isn't going to put his money on something or someone who he thinks is going to lose...I see this as a very good thing for Ford.
September 13, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you base his having previously had principled positions on what? I may have missed it, but I've never confused Ford with a principled leader.
September 13, 2006 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only young people believe this. As life experience consistently demonstrates acceptance is equivalent to being bought. Espeically when it comes to politics, it is quid pro quo. Besides, it is widely accepted that Ford didn't have much soul left to sell.
September 14, 2006 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Based on his record he is a predacious opportunist.
September 14, 2006 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this was not the South, where, Southerners are fond of saying, " the only thing that has changed when it comes to race is that Negros can vote"...I would agree. Money does not make you a winner in the South, unless you are white. Especially, when there is a gay initiative on the ballot as well? That alone is sure to bring out the 'backwoodsredneckvoter'. Who Dean rightly identified as consistently voting against their own best interests when it comes to race.
So, while I am hopefully, my money says big money does not change race issues in the South...only guns and the law can mitigate them, cause they remain unchanged.
September 14, 2006 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon guys. Murdoch is clearly on the right. He may selectively develop strategic relationships with influential "third way" politicians of the center-left - like Hillary, Blair and now Ford - but the dominant pattern of his activity, both in his direct involvements with politics and in the editorial positions of his newspaper, is in support of the right. His many public statements attest to his pro-big business, anti-welfare, anti-social democracy, pro-traditional values views. He calls himself a "libertarian" - but the libertarianism seems to be predominantly economic, not social. In other words, he is in favor of the untrammelled rights of individuals and corporations to act as they want in the economic sphere, and make piles of money without interference from laws and government regulation.
September 14, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink