Here is a little sociology experiment for your viewing pleasure.
The hypothetical; what will be the public reaction in a major metropolitan newspaper to a provocative post by one internationally famous papertiger if it is A] highly negative to democrats in general
And B] posted in two different areas of the newspapers blog?
The post in question

Other recipients of dirty communist campaign money via Norman Hsu (election influenced in parentheses) -

Phil Angelides (Gov, CA)
Dianne Feinstein (Senate, CA)
Doris Matsui (House, CA)
Bob Hertzberg (Mayor, LA)
Fiona Ma (Assembly, CA)
Gavin Newsom (Mayor, SF)
Steve Westly (Controller, CA)
Jerry Brown (AG, CA)
Mike Honda (House, CA)
Barbara Boxer (Senate, CA)
Johnny Chiang (Controller, CA)
Rockard Delgadillo (City Atty, LA)
Kamala Harris (DA, SF)
Phillip Ting (Assessor, SF)
Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor, LA)
Steve Filson (Assembly, CA)
Michela Alioto-Pier (Supervisor, SF)
John Garamendi (Lt Gov, CA)
Jaynry Mak (Supervisor, SF)
Lillian Sing (Supervisor, SF)
Bevan Dufty (Supervisor, SF)

This is just a partial list - (only those politicians Hsu gave money to that are in California)

I posted it under the story Democratic donor a no show at hearing (which only appeared in an on-line version naturally - after all this isn't newsworthy for the hard copy newspaper since it only involves democratic perfidy).

And I posted it under the story Doolittle aides testify before grand jury which although it is about a lobbiest criminal investigation, is a tale catering to a more liberal sensiblity of propriety - ie. a republican is the target (This one was not only newsworthy of the hardcopy variety , other stories were crowding it out of the "A" section, so the editors ran a suplimental "AA" section to fit it in).
At the bottom of each comment in the paper's blog section, the reader (that's you) is afforded the opportunity to vote on whether or not the comment was helpful.

Same comment. Same topic. Two different stories.
So how do you think the voting went?

Sorry for the rant.

I feel better now.

Honest.

So how did the voting go?

Simon if I tell you it would defeat the...
Ok
In the online story about Hsu, I got 6 out of 6 positive.
In the hardcopy story about the Doolittle investigation I got edited out. That's the link to the actual paper, the paper that people will read.
These craven cowards don't believe in free speech. They have a candidate to protect, and another from the other party to beat up on.
It matters not one bit to them that their candidate is the People's Republic of China's hand picked favorite.

Before the Bee airbrushed the story (and I see by the 404 code that they did indeed excise the whole thing - that happens alot when the papertiger comments) the vote was 0 out of 5.

They run their operation like Daily Kos - I kid you not.

Yes, there will be more Hsus to tap.

The audacity of hope. Thanks Eric.

Found the missing Hsu, Allah be praised!

Now if I could only find that missing sock.

We know how the Drive Bys will try to ignore and bury this, but I agree, it will get bigger. I want to see that iceberg and see it dog Hillary! all the way to Nov. 2008.

My grandmother had a favorite phrase: “Crooked as a dog’s hind leg.” No better phrase describes the Clintons and their entire machine.

Republicans throw their crooks out. Democrats nominate theirs for president.

That Hsu would skip bail is hardly surprising, as in many third world countries, bail is considered a bribe.

In the first installment of the AP story on Hsu's capture, they mentioned that Norman considered the matter in California settled by the two million dollars bail. The item has since been disappeared in the course of editing.(I am pretty sure I didn't imagine it - like 95% sure)

Which means, Eric, you are one steely eyed, balls on, accurate news analyzer.

Actually, "Hsu" isn't pronounced exactly like "shu" either --- the "hs" represents a softer sibilant, pronounced with the tongue farther back and toward the top of the mouth. It's sort of halfway between "su" and "shu".

"Republicans throw their crooks out. Democrats nominate theirs for president."

Come now, you don't actually believe this do you? From my chair, I see corruption and scandal in both parties, and no hint whatsoever that either one is any less tolerant of said corruption than the other. Whenever a corruption scandal breaks, the outcome is the same: The scandalous member's party blames the partisanship of the other party. The other party accuses the scandal-ed party of coddling criminals. The same formula has been used by both parties, repeatedly. Why the hell would anybody believe anything any of them have to say on the issue?

Blaming one party or the other is a childish cop-out, and fails to address the problem, namely, that we allow large contributions to political campaigns. Let's eliminate corporate contributions altogether for the obvious conflict of interest, and let's limit individuals to $1000.

If we allow votes to be purchased, I guarantee that they will be purchased on BOTH sides of the aisle. The democrats will take money from socialists and communists who want to expand socialism, and the republicans will take money from capitalists and big business who want to expand their own wallets. Really, is any party "better" than the other? No, they're all criminals, crooks, and liars.

My hypothesis:
1. Hsu was ordered back to PRC, probably via diplomatic cover on a PRC-chartered jet to avoid interference from US authorities.
2. Hsu was not completely sure whether he would complete the entire flight, or be let off early at 20,000 feet over mid-Pacific.
3. Hsu knew airports would be covered (by Feds, PRC, and...), and international flights especially.
4. So Hsu decided to leave by train to the East, "get sick" before arriving at his ticketed destination, and thus arrange to fall into Federal custody.
5. His only hope now is to sing like a bird to avoid being sent back to California, where he obviously does not feel safe, even in jail. The only question is whether we will get to hear his song, and if so, how soon?

No, they're all criminals, crooks, and liars.

I respectfully disagree, on two counts:
1. While there are indeed crooks in both parties, the only reason it looks like there is a similar propensity across parties is the MSM hyping the misdeeds on one party and burying those of the other. This is so obvious that I don't see how it can be overlooked.
2. Both parties may have their "criminals, crooks, and liars", but I think one party uniquely has another class, and that is "traitors". That would be politicians who have received money and/or favors from foreign governments or "interest groups", and now find themselves being either explicitly or implicitly, blackmailed. I regard it as a near certainly that there are Democrats who are or have been working in the service of foreign governments.

"I regard it as a near certainly that there are Democrats who are or have been working in the service of foreign governments."

You regard it as a near certainty, despite no evidence. You listen to the rumors from one rumor mill, and believe them over the rumors from the other. There is no evidence whatsoever that any congressmen are in the service of a foreign nation.

But just to play fair, if you're talking about the China/Clinton "connection", I would bring up the Saudi/Bush "connection", and point out that your argument about one party being "worse" than the other still holds no water whatsoever.

Interesting how accepting (then giving back) money from China is behavior becoming a "traitor" by your logic, but accepting (and keeping) money from known terrorist-supporting nations like Saudi Arabia isn't.

I could also point out the Dubai/Cheney "connection", or point out the several republican congressmen who have pledged allegience to Rev. Moon.

You can hate democrats all you want, it doesn't make them any worse. You can love republicans to your heart's content, it doesn't make them any better. They both take money from people that then expect special treatment/consideration, and destroy our own nation in the process. Whether it's foreign governments, oil companies, the frozen pizza lobby, AIPAC, or the NAACP, money buys votes, and it's wrong. Open your eyes, and see both sides for what they truly are, and keep in mind that supporting the "lesser" of two evils is still supporting evil.

When the president decides to take up the part of a foreign country such as Saudi Arabia it's called the foreign policy of the United States.

Try again, Incredulous.

"Interesting how accepting (then giving back) money from China is behavior becoming a "traitor" by your logic..."

A. If you allow any crime to be undone once it is discovered, nothing is a crime, is it?
B. The Clintons never acknowledged the money there is much circumstantial evidence that they received from China in 1996, which is what I am talking about, not the recent money from Hsu that Hillary gave to charity.
C. The allegations you cite in respect to Bush and Cheney, even if they were true, are allegedly about personal gain via a relationship with an assumed ally, not about selling out US security to an enemy. Accepting money for diluting national security by permitting the sale of sensitive technology is a crime no matter how you spin it.

D. You seek to conflate things that (if they occurred at all) would look like mistakes in 20-20 hindsight, with actual treasonous crimes. Much as in the way the mistake about Iraqi WMD's that nearly everyone made, has evolved into the crime that uber-genius/moron Bush committed against nearly everyone who knew better all along. I have seen dozens of videos of Clinton administration figures pronouncing on Iraqi WMD's, and doing so long before George Bush became President, but the MSM has helped the Dems erase all that and blame Bush.

"Whether it's foreign governments, oil companies, the frozen pizza lobby, AIPAC, or the NAACP, money buys votes, and it's wrong."

If you don't understand how that first source of influence in your list is different from the rest, I don't think we have any shared-values basis for discussing it further.

I'm sorry to say that in the current climate of media brainwashing and spinning for one party all the time, when I hear someone saying "All politicians are evil", I assume that they are covering for Dems. Absolutely fair? No. Probably realistic? Yes.

"If you don't understand how that first source of influence in your list is different from the rest, I don't think we have any shared-values basis for discussing it further."

Please explain to me how it behooves anyone to only discuss matters with like-minded people. That separates yourself from not only a large part of the population, but from the ability to make an informed decision. Great thinkers seek out those who disagree to test their own ideas. That's why up until recently, it was customary for a president to fill his cabinet with both "like-minded" people as well as those who were considered political "enemies" during their campaigns. This tendency that you seem to have of downplaying any Republican scandal as "media-hype" while whining about how little attention what YOU consider atrocities (which, surprise surprise, all involve the people YOU dont agree with) receives is purely an example of knee-jerk partisanship, which has no place in intelligent conversation. From where I'm sitting the "liberal media" are hardly as effective at brainwashing as "conservative talk radio". And I watch and listen to both.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0907dem-fundraiser0907-ON.html

I found it. The original AP report titled Disgraced Democratic fundraiser in custody at Colorado hospital

Last sentence: Hsu has said he believed he had resolved his legal issues, but that he would halt his work raising political money.

I think Norman still believes his bail was a bribe, and that the whole thing is over and done.

Sorry, "shared-values" does not equal "like-minded", but obfuscation IS is easier than argumentation, I'll grant you that. Goodbye.

J.,

It is a given on the left that all Republicans or conservatives think alike on all issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you indeed do listen to conservative talk radio (I do), you would hear constant arguments over ideas and constant anger and frustration with other factions of the Republican party.

It is not even true that all "good conservatives" agree on all ideas. Some of us are actively against the GWOT and just want to be isolationists -- as if that were even possible in this modern era. Others of us care #1, #2 and #3 about the GWOT and fighting it effectively and destroying our enemy and care less about the social or tax agenda.

I personally have the GWOT as my first 3 issues at least; if we don't fight and win nothing else of the Republican OR Democrat agendas even matter. We won't exist. I care about the social agenda but it does not drive my vote. I do believe in taxes as low as possible and a government that provides a robust defense and justice system and pretty much nothing else. IOW, as small and non-intrusive government as possible, because government gets just about everything wrong other than defense and justice (and they do justice pretty badly -- my family just went through it as victims).

I also want the millions of mediocre government workers (non-military) out of the system and actually producing something useful and contributive to society rather than just sucking at the government teat. And don't get me started on Social Security, healthcare, and education...but they would be privatized in my perfect world.

I assure you many good conservatives totally disagree with me on much of the above, and I consider myself a good conservative.

Listen to Rush lately? Not only is he at odds with most of the Republican party leadership but many of his listeners are at odds with him. This is not because he's changed but because the country is falling into a soft socialism mindset. Not me. My mindset has only hardened.

We don't all agree over here; we don't send out talking points to all recite the same mantra. I've been a lefty Dem for decades in the past, I know the dogma, I know the line. Dems march much more in fascistic lockstep than do Republicans, believe me. We like ideas and we are not threatened by challenges to them. We like arguing. We don't like dogma and obeying.